MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134707487 · doi:10.1007/s00428-021-03061-1

The gastric disease of Napoleon Bonaparte: brief report for the bicentenary of Napoleon’s death on St. Helena in 1821

2021· article· en· W3134707487 on OpenAlexaff
Alessandro Lugli, Fátima Carneiro, Heather Dawson, Jean–François Fléjou, Richard Kirsch, Rachel S. van der Post, Michael Vieth, Magali Svrcek

Bibliographic record

VenueArchiv für Pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für Klinische Medicin · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersUniversity of Bern
KeywordsAutopsyBattleMedicineCause of deathDiseaseHistoryAncient historyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the defeat at the battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815, Napoleon Bonaparte was sent into exile to the Island of St. Helena where he died 6 years later on May 5, 1821. One day after his death, Napoleon's personal physician, Dr. Francesco Antommarchi, performed the autopsy in the presence of Napoleon's exile companions and the British medical doctors. Two hundred years later, mysteries still surround the cause of his death and different hypotheses have been postulated in the medical and historical literature. The main reasons seem to be the presence of several autopsy reports, their interpretation and perhaps the greed for thrill and mystery. Therefore, for the bicentenary of Napoleon's death, an international consortium of gastrointestinal pathologists assembled to analyse Napoleon's autopsy reports based on the level of medical evidence and to investigate if the autopsy reports really do not allow a final statement.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchiv für Pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für Klinische MedicinSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207