MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552783202

Repeat of Great Bengal Famine Unlikely Thanks to Fungicides

2012· article· en· W2552783202 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leonard Gianessi, Ashley Williams

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamineBENGALStarvationPopulationSocioeconomicsGovernment (linguistics)GeographyMalnutritionAdministration (probate law)Agricultural economicsDevelopment economicsEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomicsBiologyMedicineEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bengal, which prior to the partition of India covered the state of West Bengal in India and Bangladesh, suffered from a calamitous famine in 1943, when two million people died of starvation [1]. Altogether about 3 million people may have died as a result of the famine as disease killed those weakened by starvation [2]. The deaths occurred among the rural population who could not afford to buy rice, which had increased significantly in price due to short supply. World War II had cut off imports of rice from Burma. Shipments of food from Britain, Canada, and the USA were limited due to wartime priorities elsewhere. Food administration in India was the responsibility of provincial governments. Provinces, like Punjab, where food was not in short supply, prohibited rice exports to other regions. The Bengal government made the feeding of the urban Calcutta population a priority and requisitioned rice supplies from rural areas [2]. Many people migrated to the cities in the hope of finding employment and rice. Finding neither, they slowly died of starvation [1].

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.169 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207