Darwinian Evolution’s First 50 Years of Impact on Medicine and Botany at the University of Toronto, 1859 to 1909
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to Darwin's masterworks, a university professor of medicine's purview generally included the professorship of botany and direction of the botanical gardens. Yet from the landmark 1876 Johns Hopkins model and especially after the 1910 Flexner Report, botany was limited at certain medical schools to (exaggerating somewhat) "decorating their lobbies!" Darwinian-era scientific paradigms spread from continental Europe through promulgators such as Huxley and Osler, transforming laboratory research, disease aetiology, biochemical therapeutics, and clinical "bedside" teaching. Unintended consequences at universities with medical schools might include altered loyalties and resources among competing disciplines. At the University of Toronto, botany vis-à-vis medicine was gradually treated as passé or secondary to zoology for modern, scientific platforms. This pattern was not universal; botany strongholds at universities such as Harvard continued to flourish. Where a negative perspective took hold with evolutionary impacts, botanists' careers became limited and the impetus for maintaining botanic research and teaching facilities such as a university botanical gardens was impaired.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".