MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562548795 · doi:10.3138/cbmh.30.1.211

The Making of Modern Medicine: Turning Points in the Treatment of Disease Michael Bliss

2013· article· en· W2562548795 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kristen Ann Ehrenberger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health History · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical Medical Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBLISSMedicineTraditional medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

History at the University of Western Ontario in 2008. In just 100 pages (including endnotes), the author summarizes his work and contributions to the history of medicine in Canada, with a particular emphasis on "faith," both religious and secular. The question he asks is, how did (most) Westerners come to have such great faith in modern medical science? Using case studies drawn from the North Atlantic Triangle of late 19th-and early 20th-century Canada, the United States, and Great Britain, Bliss answers it is because practitioners such as William Osler and Harvey Cushing first promised and then delivered successful diagnoses, prognoses, prophylaxes, and-most important-therapies.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health HistorySame topicHistorical Medical Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207