A Associação Brasileira de Medicina do Trabalho: locus do processo de constituição da especialidade medicina do trabalho no Brasil na década de 1940
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes the Brazilian Association of Workers' Medicine, created in the end of 1944 as a space for consolidating occupational health as a medical specialty in Brazil. The Association was founded by the first group of specialists in the field of occupational hygiene and medicine with seat at the facilities of the proper Ministry of Work, Industry and Commerce, where the founders were working. Counting on an initial core group of 35 physicians and five engineers, all of them coming from the Ministry, the main objective of the Association was to study, discuss and promote the issues related to workers' medicine. Among the most relevant activities promoted by the Association were the monthly scientific meetings (with lectures held by invited physicians and physicians and engineers of the Ministry itself), the organization of scientific events and the publication of a specialized periodical. In 1945, only one year after its foundation, the Association passed to make part of the International Bureau of Safety at Work, with seat in Montreal, Canada, and the International Bureau of Work of the International Labor Organization. In December 1945, on occasion of the election of the new board of directors, the Association created the Journal of Workers' Medicine, whose first issue was published in 1946.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".