MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551622599 · doi:10.1353/vcr.2016.0002

Communities of Health

2016· article· en· W2551622599 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James A. Hanley

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelshJurisdictionPublic healthSociologyPolitical scienceLawMedicineGeographyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Communities of Health James Hanley (bio) Health and disease, and the methods used to analyze, promote, and control them, created communities of diverse geographic and demographic scope and size in Victorian Britain. These communities ranged from the individuals who lived within a particular local board of health district to those housed within a particular institution to those defined as in need of medical attention according to some conventional standard of health, illness, or ability. Membership in these communities had presumed medical benefits but often had costs as well, sometimes quite out of proportion to the benefits; people at risk for smallpox, women with syphilis, and individuals in lodgings were in one way or another restricted in the enjoyment of their bodily and civil liberties. They were not accorded all the rights associated with community membership; disease and the methods to prevent it marked out different people for different kinds of treatment. These methods, including inspection, notification, isolation, registration, and vaccination, operated throughout Victorian Britain and its empire and were inflected by a variety of general and local factors. Mid-Victorian English and Welsh sanitary reform displayed these contradictory impulses, simultaneously including and excluding both problems and people. Under the 1848 Public Health Act, matters of potential concern to the health of the public were marginalized as a result of its focus on sanitary matters, and even the actions taken under its authority were applied partially and inconsistently. The property-based franchise for the act itself reproduced and reinforced the fact that inclusion within a jurisdiction did not imply membership in the political community. Yet sanitary reform was not always about exclusion and division, as the physical and financial boundaries created under the act showed. In the course of making these boundaries, local public health promoters developed a view of public health that constructed a new kind of community, integrating spatially, socially, and functionally distinct kinds of property into a common political and financial regime. [End Page 14] The 1848 Public Health Act was one of several contemporary laws with boundary implications. As a result of boundary-making exercises associated with, for example, the 1832 Reform Act, the 1834 New Poor Law, and the 1835 Municipal Reform Act, spatial and hence political and financial relationships among the country’s rural, urban, and suburban populations changed in highly significant ways. Physical and financial boundaries created under the Public Health Act likewise redefined not only membership but also responsibility and, more importantly, liability. The establishment of the physical boundaries of the local health district could, depending on the circumstances, include property hitherto exempt from paying for urban improvement such as suburban houses, local industry, and building and agricultural land. Once a physical boundary was set, the local board of health (lbh) still had to make difficult decisions about distributing the costs of sanitary improvement within that boundary. The Public Health Act left decisions about rating to lbh discretion, and local boards’ rating decisions consistently pushed the financial boundaries of health, rating property hitherto exempt from these charges. This was potentially legally controversial, and local boards could and did end up in front of the courts. The most important legal case of lbh financial boundary-making revolved around the ancient rating principle in Tudor sewer law that a property owner or occupier was not required to pay for any works from which their property did not derive a (direct) benefit. Practically speaking, the benefit principle was realized by having sewer districts subdivided into smaller areas so as to make assessments of benefit more meaningful; in the usual language of the time, separate subdistricts were to be identified, and, as near as possible, each subdistrict was to pay its own expenses. In the 1848 Public Health Act, by contrast, there was no explicit direction requiring the local boards of health to subdivide their districts. The 1848 Public Health Act thus permitted local boards to construct drainage and waterworks for a district encompassing several hitherto distinct neighbourhoods and to rate all of the property of the district equally for the work (some property was statutorily rated at a discount) instead of throwing the cost on the most densely populated and sometimes poorest part of a...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian reviewSame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207