Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the First World War progressed, rates of typhoid diminished. This was heralded as a triumph of sanitary improvement and disease protection; yet as to how the British military achieved this remains a contentious issue. Objections arose around the danger of inoculation and the unpleasant and potentially deadly side effects. Between the unaffected and the sufferers of the vaccine's side effects are the unexplored stories of the refusers. Often bizarre, their accounts include stories of unsanctioned cajoling, arrests, suspension of privileges, and even physically forced inoculation. Soldiers could be encouraged, convinced, and, in rare cases, even forced to undergo inoculation. For others, the opportunity to refuse was often not made clear, as inoculation became part of routine military life. Despite the fact that soldiers were supposed to have complete autonomy over their own inoculation, the reality was often different. Penalties for noncompliance and a lack of clarification about soldiers' rights demonstrated that throughout the war a clash developed between individual autonomy and an authoritarian regime determined to ensure the health of its fighting force.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".