[The rise and fall of Zander-Institutes around 1900 in The Netherlands].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Around 1860 the Swedish physician dr. Jonas Gustav V. Zander (1835-1920) set himself to devise different sorts of contraptions. He believed that people who needed medical gymnastics could be treated better and more efficiently with the help of machines. His mechanistic approach can be understood in the context of the upcoming industrialisation that rapidly got a hold on Europe in this period. After a very successful presentation at the World Exhibitions in Philadelphia (1876) and in Paris (1878), the Zander-method soon caught on in the medical world and many so-called Zander-Institutes (which are very similar to the fitness-centres these days) emerged in teh bigger cities of various European countries. In the nineties of the nineteenth century Zander-therapy became very popular in The Netherlands as well. In 1894 the first Zander-Institute opened its doors in Groningen. WIthin four years another eight Zander-Institutes would follow in the major cities throughout the nation. In these institutes physical education teachers, who engaged themselves in medical gymnastics, and physicians worked closely together. This was considered to be a good development, since the domain of medical gymnastics was a heavily contested area in the field of labour in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Afer a short flourishing period almost all of the Zander-Institutes had great difficulty to survive in the first decade of the twentieth century. Both rise and fall of teh Zander-Institutes can be ascribed to a combination of factors of a scientific (with regard to the method), social (viz. legislation concerning the care of the crippled) and professional (with regard to the different strategies of the involved professions) nature. In this article these factors and teh relations between them will be described.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.005 |
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".