Practice of Otology During the First Quarter Century of the American Otological Society (1868–1893)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the practice of otology in America during the first quarter century of the American Otological Society (AOS). METHODS: Two sources were used to determine the most prevalent disease conditions cared for and surgical procedures undertaken during this era. All articles published in the AOS transactions between 1868 and 1893 were studied as were the otology textbooks published by 6 of the first 10 Presidents of the Society. RESULTS: The primary emphasis of late 19th century American otological scholarship was on chronic ear infection with numerous articles focusing on complications of otitis including frequent descriptions of fatalities. Much emphasis was placed upon the Eustachian tube with catheterization and insufflation a major part of otological practice. Due to limitations in technology, the overwhelming focus was on diseases of the ear canal and middle ear. Understanding of temporal bone anatomy was much superior to that of physiology. Erroneous speculations on the function of the middle and inner ear were common. Surgical interventions were largely limited to myringotomy and mastoidectomy, the latter of which was sometimes life saving during the preantibiotic era. CONCLUSION: The latter half of the 19th century saw the emergence of otology as a specialty in America and many emerging diagnostic and therapeutic advances were adopted. While capabilities were notably limited during this era, the efforts of a small band of pioneer otologists in the founder generation of the AOS contributed greatly to the progress of the emerging specialty.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".