MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2929666464 · doi:10.3138/cbmh.365-052019

Borders and Blood Fractions: Gamma Globulin and Canada’s Fight against Polio, 1950–55

2019· article· en· W2929666464 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Stephen E. Mawdsley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health History · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSyphilis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsPoliomyelitisPoliomyelitis eradicationPolio vaccinePolitical scienceMedicinePublic healthEconomic growthVirologyNursingPoliovirusEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the early 1950s, Canada's efforts to prevent polio became heavily influenced by developments in the United States. America's foremost polio charity, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, sponsored University of Pittsburgh researcher Dr. William McD. Hammon to evaluate the efficacy of a human blood fraction, gamma globulin (GG), to prevent paralytic polio. When the resulting clinical trial data appeared to show that the blood fraction offered some protection against the disease, Canadians embraced the concept for reasons of historical trust, parental demand, and public health pragmatism. They established Canada's first national immunization program to fight polio before the vaccine, as well as developed a plan to produce, evaluate, and distribute GG to epidemic areas. Despite being an expensive enterprise for a geographically vast and sparsely populated nation, Canada's GG program was extended to citizens and it became an important response to polio before a safe and effective vaccine was licensed. Although the blood fraction was not as effective at preventing polio paralysis as researchers had anticipated, its systematic use reveals how Canadian health leaders drew on transnational relationships to reduce the incidence of disease.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health HistorySame topicSyphilis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207