Commentary: What might have been: Sullivan may have impacted modern prenatal alcohol research under different circumstances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
William Sullivan’s 1899 paper, ‘A Note on the Influence of Maternal Inebriety on the Offspring’,1 often cited as a precursor to modern fetal alcohol research, was published at a time when alcoholism was a topic of great interest in Europe and North America. Emerging theories of heredity, eugenics and temperance movements drove alcoholism research from 1860 to 1910. In addition to an upsurge of medical literature on alcoholism, a number of journals devoted to the topic were formed (e.g. Journal of Inebriety).2 Benedict Morel’s theory of hereditary degeneration was influential in the medical field generally, including research on alcohol and reproduction. This theory postulated that degenerative traits, of which alcoholism was thought to be one of the more obvious, pass on hereditarily and accumulate over generations, eventually leading to the extinction of the family bloodline by about the fourth generation.3 Since heredity was the transmitting mechanism for degenerative traits, paternal alcoholism was generally considered as detrimental as maternal alcoholism. While some researchers and activists were concerned that alcoholism would degenerate society as a whole, others suggested that through degeneracy and extinction of family lines the propensity for alcohol would limit itself.4 Since alcohol was readily available and its effects observable and treatable, the study of alcoholism as a degenerative condition was of particular interest, and most alcoholism research during this period supported the degeneration theory. Sullivan strongly advocated the theory of degeneration in his alcoholism research.5
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 | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.062 | 0.044 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
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".