MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2489678872 · doi:10.1057/9780230102293_4

Academic Medicine during the Nazi Period: The Implications for Creating Awareness of Professional Responsibility Today

2010· book-chapter· en· W2489678872 on OpenAlexaff
William E. Seidelman

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriod (music)GermanNazismEugenicsClassicsMedicineHistoryPolitical scienceLawArtAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the mid-1930s, a young physician from Louisiana by the name of Michael DeBakey began a period of surgical training in Europe. After studying vascular surgery in France, he moved to Germany to continue his surgical studies with Professor Martin Kirschner at the University of Heidelberg. 1 Heidelberg was, at that time, recognized as a center for outstanding surgical training. Young DeBakey was following a decades old tradition whereby North American physicians traveled to the birthplace of modern scientific medicine—Europe. 2 It was the German-language universities that gave birth to many of the major discoveries and developments that have formed the foundation of modern medicine and medical science. DeBakey s European quest followed in the footsteps of such eminent physicians as the clinician William Osier, the pathologist William Welch, and the surgeon William Halsted. The period that saw an eruption in knowledge and technology in clinical and basic science also witnessed the parallel development of eugenics and scientific racism, which were also considered legitimate scholarly and scientific endeavors.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.048
Scholarly communication0.0120.015
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooksSame topicMedical History and ResearchFrench-language works237,207