MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2444038253 · doi:10.3138/cbmh.24.1.189

From Osler’s Library to the Osler Library of the History of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal: An Overview

2007· article· en· W2444038253 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Christopher Lyons

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health History · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistory of Medical Practice
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityWilliam Osler Health System
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReignNational libraryLibrary scienceSpecial collectionsHistory of medicineHistoryHistory of scienceMedical libraryClassicsPolitical scienceLawPoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Osler Library of the History of Medicine was opened in 1929 at McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Sir William Osler (1849-1919), arguably McGill's and Canada's most famous doctor at the time, had bequeathed his magnificent library of almost 8,000 historical works in medicine and, to a lesser extent, science and literature to the university. Under the 30-year reign of its first librarian, Dr. W W. Francis, the Osler Library became famous for its rare books and for its connection with Sir William. Since the 1950s, however, the library has pursued an active collection development policy for both primary and secondary material that has taken it far beyond Osler's original gift. The library has grown in both the size and scope of its holdings and the services it offers to scholars and students of the history of medicine. These have made the Osler Library a major resource centre for studies in the history of the health sciences. This article looks at the Osler Library today in the hopes of making the range of its collections and services better known to the Canadian and international communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0150.036
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0160.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health HistorySame topicHistory of Medical PracticeFrench-language works237,207