Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renaissance naturalists, repeating a belief inherited from Pliny and Ovid, claimed that a bear cub was born as a lump of flesh that was licked into ursine shape by its mother's tongue.1 While the myth exemplifies an extreme form of maternal touch, twentieth‐century scientific studies of animal behavior repeatedly demonstrate that nurturing contact between a mother and her offspring—behavior distinctive to mammals—is vital to establishing the physiological processes that sustain life in the organism. A mother cat licks her newborn kitten less to clean it than to stimulate its bodily systems; without this lingual touch, the kitten is less likely to survive.2 Psychosocial medical research, following H. F. Harlow's pioneering work on rhesus monkeys in the 1950s, extended this insight to human infants: babies deprived of touch because of hospitalization or separation from the mother showed deficits of intelligence, abnormal psychological development, and perhaps compromised immune systems.3 The media's coverage in 1990 of the plight of Romanian orphans under Nicolae Ceauşescu's regime brought the tragic effects of tactile deprivation to renewed and sensational public attention. Western culture's relatively recent recognition of the primacy of touch is striking because it stages a retrieval of tactility, foregrounding the importance of a sensory faculty that seems to have been lost or overshadowed by the other four senses. Throughout its history, in fact, touch has always been simultaneously the least and the most important of the five senses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.006 |
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".