The Currency of Consciousness: Neurology, Specialization, and the Global Practices of Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the formation of a global community of neurologists between 1918 and 1970. Relying chiefly upon documents located in Anglo-American archives, its argument follows a narrative from money to memory, and posits that this global community of neurologists formed not out of a shared science and medicine of the nervous system, but out of shared dispositions in tastes, values, and culture. The localism and heterogeneity of the science and medicine of the nervous system was in fact so pronounced that neurologists - especially when they worked as "global citizens" - were forced to focus upon their superficial commonalities rather than examine local distinctions. This avoidance of a direct effort to define the content of neurology - or at least to confront their differences - exercised a peculiar influence on the specialty. Neurologists and their "official memory" became negotiated, and even imagined constructs. Consequently, these diverse cultures were ultimately subordinated to dominant economic interests.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".