Sandra Opdycke,<i>The Flu Epidemic of 1918: America's Experience in the Global Health Crisis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1976, the distinguished historian Alfred W. Crosby, already credited with writing the path-breaking Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492, published another influential work, Epidemic and Peace, 1918.1 When the book was re-released years later, Crosby appropriately retitled the text America's Forgotten Pandemic, foregrounding one of the mysteries surrounding his subject, the 1918–19 outbreak of influenza that had raced around the globe, claiming perhaps 50 to 100 million lives. In the United States, over one-quarter of the population had been infected and some 675,000 had died, more than ten times the number of Americans killed in the First World War, with roughly half of those deaths occurring in just a six-week period. Yet for decades, as Crosby hailed with his new title, the outbreak had received little scholarly or popular attention. In recent years, though, study of the pandemic has flourished, attracting scholars from fields reaching from epidemiology and pathology to geography and anthropology. Historians, too, have explored the pandemic from a range of methodological and geographical perspectives, including a flurry of new work on the United States during the scourge. Combining an effective synthesis of this recent historiography with her own perceptive insights, Sandra Opdycke's The Flu Epidemic of 1918 is a welcome addition to this growing literature.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".