Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caesarean section has been a part of obstetrical culture since ancient times. Its history is shrouded in myth, and the true origins of the term “Caesarean” have likely been distorted over time. It is commonly believed that “Caesarean” is derived from the surgical birth of Julius Caesar. However, this seems unlikely, since his mother, Aurelia, is reputed to have lived to hear of her son’s invasion of Britain and was 60 to 70 years old when she died. It may be that one of Julius’ ancestors was delivered by a postmortem section, according to Pliny the Elder. In any event, it is clear that most procedures were performed on women who were dead or dying. The odds of a woman surviving hemorrhage and/or subsequent infection were slim until the 19th century, when surgical delivery became a viable option. This small ink and watercolour illustration by an artist whose name is lost to history depicts a medieval Caesarean section in which a mother who has died in childbirth has been placed upon an operating table for a postmortem delivery. The barber-surgeon holding his blade turns away from the deceased mother and focuses his attention on the nurse holding a freshly swaddled newborn. The work is taken from the Apocalypsis S. Johannis cum glossis et Vita S. Johannis; Ars Moriendi (circa 1420 to 1430), which were gynaecological texts that included information about conception, pregnancy, and childbirth. This particular image is taken from folio 38 verso and is a part of the Wellcome Library. Wellcome Library, London. Ink and Watercolour Circa 1420–30. From: MS 49, Apocalypse, (The), [etc.]. Apocalypsis S. Johannis cum glossis et Vita S. Johannis; Ars Moriendi, etc.; Anatomical, medical, texts, theological moral and allegorical ‘exempla’ and extracts, a few in verse. Folio 38 verso. Collection: Archives & Manuscripts. Library reference no.: WMS 49. Copyrighted work available under Creative Commons Attribution only licence CC BY 4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".