MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620707335 · doi:10.1503/cjs.006317

The University of Toronto’s lasting contribution to war surgery: how Maj. L. Bruce Robertson fundamentally transformed thinking toward blood transfusion during the First World War

2017· article· en· W2620707335 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Abigail Tien, Andrew Beckett, Dylan Pannell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Innovations
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBattlefieldFront lineHemorrhagic shockMilitary medicineWorld War IIBlood transfusionFront (military)ResuscitationSurgeon generalLawSurgeryAncient historyHistoryNursingPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: During the Great War, Canadian military surgeons produced some of the greatest innovations to improve survival on the battlefield. Arguably, the most important was bringing blood transfusion practice close to the edge of the battlefield to resuscitate the many casualties dying of hemorrhagic shock. Dr. L. Bruce Robertson of the Canadian Army Medical Corps was the pioneering surgeon from the University of Toronto who was able to demonstrate the benefit of blood transfusions near the front line and counter the belief that saline was the resuscitation fluid of choice in military medicine. Robertson would go on to survive the Great War, but would be taken early in life by influenza. Despite his life and career being cut short, Robertson's work is still carried on today by many military medical organizations who strive to bring blood to the wounded in austere and dangerous settings. This article has an Appendix, available at canjsurg.ca.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.003

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.160 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicMedical History and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207