Bibliographic record
Abstract
There was a tendency for public health and medical research to overlap in Latin America over the first half of the twentieth century. There was also a gradual movement of medical education toward the emerging hegemony of the U.S. model of the teaching hospital conjoined with the laboratory, led by full-time clinicians and medical and life scientists. Even so, the leading medical figures of the continent were notable in their ability to maintain relative autonomy from U.S. and local state sponsors and carve a niche for themselves and their disciples under adverse conditions. They were also successful in making their mark in areas outside of tropical medicine and public health, with pioneering forays into tuberculosis, physiology, cardiology, oncology, psychiatry, and nutrition. Latin American physicians were also at the forefront of a eugenics movement that distinguished itself from dominant trends elsewhere by embracing the idea that, while race mattered (and widespread elite racism reigned), acquired characteristics could be inherited. This dovetailed with growing acceptance that the mixed-race masses could become citizens of modern nations given the extension of certain state policies in education, health, and welfare. After World War II, as Latin American countries began to show notable increases in population growth rates, the region became a focus for national and international population control efforts. Paradoxically, the partial success of public health programs (the control of malaria, for example) was now criticized by population growth alarmists for exacerbating the boom. The region’s health actors, often outside the loop of the more dynamic efforts to introduce birth control and family planning, were slow to respond. Nevertheless, a number of Latin American physicians achieved prominence as political leaders in the postwar period, playing crucial roles a number of regimes advocating dramatic social transformation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".