Elsie Inglis (1864-1917) and the Scottish women’s hospitals in Serbia in the Great War. Part 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The news about the great victories of the Gallant Little Serbia in the Great War spread far and wide. Following on the appeals from the Serbian legations and the Serbian Red Cross, assistance was arriving from all over the world. First medical missions and medical and other help arrived from Russia. It was followed by the medical missions from Great Britain, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, America, etc. Material help and individual volunteers arrived from Poland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Norway, India, Japan, Egypt, South America, and elsewhere. The true friends of Serbia formed various funds under the auspices of the Red Cross Society, and other associations. In September 1914, the Serbian Relief Fund was established in London, while in Scotland the first units of the Scottish Women?s Hospitals for Foreign Service were formed in November of the same year. The aim of this work was to keep the memory of the Scottish Women?s Hospitals in Serbia and with the Serbs in the Great War. In the history of the Serbian nation during the Great War, a special place was held by the Scottish Women?s Hospitals ? a unique humanitarian medical mission. It was the initiative of Dr. Elsie Maud Inglis (1864?1917), a physician, surgeon, promoter of equal rights for women, and with the support of the Scottish Federation of Woman?s Suffrage Societies. The Scottish Women?s Hospitals, which were completely staffed by women, by their participation in the Great War, also contributed to gender and professional equality, especially in medicine. Many of today?s achievements came about thanks to the first generations of women doctors, who fought for equality in choosing to study medicine, and working in the medical field, in time of war and peacetime.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".