MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205341546 · doi:10.1177/09677720211046588

The enigma of Sir William Robert Wills Wilde (1815–1876)

2021· article· en· W3205341546 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Patrick J. Boland, Sean P. Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Biography · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteMcGill University
KeywordsIrishFamineHumanitySympathyMythologyPopulationHistoryMedicineCensusClassicsAncient historyLawPhilosophyPolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

William Wilde, father of Oscar Wilde, made a significant contribution to ophthalmology and otology. Qualified as a surgeon. educated in statistics and showing sympathy for the Irish population, Wilde was appointed a Commissioner for the 1851 Census, which covered the time of the Irish Famine (1845–1852). Wilde, steeped in Irish mythology, used his knowledge to develop a close rapport with the Irish peasantry. However, his life was a paradox; he supported the British Government's approach to the Famine and at the same time he showed humanity to the Irish peasantry. In his personal life he was implicated in an abortive libel case involving a young female patient who had accused him of rape. Wilde lived as though he had two separate lives : on the one hand the successful surgeon, famine Commissioner and cataloguer of Irish antiquities, and the other a countryman and disciple of Irish mythology. Wilde was highly preceptive especially in his views on the recording of medical data and outcomes in clinical practice. We argue that Wilde was probably unmatched in the variety of his talents but was also perplexing in the various actions he took during his life and that indeed Wilde was an enigma.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical BiographySame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207