Right Living: An Anglo-American Tradition of Self-Help Medicine and Hygiene Charles E. Rosenberg, ed.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
p., US$40.00 (cloth) Medical history is usually a record of the giants of the health professions.Bookstores and libraries retain the classic medical books of an era.But for generations of Americans, access to professional health care was either unavailable or undesirable.Given that most therapies offered by physicians involved bleeding, purging, or emesis, many Americans in the 18th and 19th century turned to pamphlets and almanacs to supplement the wisdom of mothers and other senior members of the community.Right Living provides a peek into this world of self-help and medical advice literature, much of which has either disappeared or been so heavily used that remaining copies are in tatters.As outlined in the preface, "this book grew out an exhibit and related conference on print culture and popular health cosponsored by two distinguished Philadelphia institutions, the Library Company of Philadelphia, founded as a subscription library in 1731, and the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, a private medical association founded in 1787" and weaves together both the social history of medicine as well as an American history of books and readings about medicine.Selective rather than comprehensive in the treatment of this topic, the book divides into three themes.Of the nine chapters, several are devoted to the transfer of health and informal medical knowledge from Britain to the young Amer-rnals.press/
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".