Book Notes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Notes Patrick Dandrey. Anthologie de l'humeur noire: Écrits sur la mélancolie d'Hippocrate à l'Encyclopédie. Paris: Gallimard–Promeneur, 2005. 791 pp. E39.99 (paperbound, 2-07-077547-X). This collection of translated and annotated primary sources is divided chronologically, with an introduction preceding each section. "L'antiquité classique" encompasses works by Hippocrates, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Celsus, Rufus of Ephesus, and Galen, among others. "L'antiquité tardive" includes essays by Jean Chrysostome, Évagre le Pontique, Oribasius, and Alexander of Tralles. "De la médicine arabe à la clergie médiévale" comprises works by Constantine the African, Rhazes, Avicenna, Averroes, Hugues de Fouilloi, Hildegard of Bingen, William of Auvergne, and Bernard of Gordon. "Les renaissances" takes the reader from Petrarch to Ficin, Ofhuys, Melanchthon, Wier, and Huarte. Finally, "Du zénith baroque au crépuscule des Lumières" includes writings by Garzoni, Du Laurens, Guibelet, Robert Burton, Van Helmont, Sydenham, and Boissier de Sauvages. The book's concluding chapter is followed by a lexicon and an index. The Editors [End Page 496] Susan Hamilton, ed. Animal Welfare and Anti-vivisection 1870–1910: Nineteenth-Century Woman's Mission. 3 vols. London: Routledge, 2004. Vol. 1: Frances Power Cobbe, lxv + 390 pp. (facsimile), ill. (0-415-32142-5). Vol. 2: Anti-Vivisection Writings, ix + 353 pp. (facsimile) (0-415-32143-3). Vol. 3: Pro-Vivisection Writings, viii + 311 pp. (0-415-32144-1). Set $765.00 (0-415-32141-7). These three volumes in the series History of Feminism provide an incredibly important set of materials on the nineteenth-century controversy in England over the use of live animals in scientific research. The editor is Susan Hamilton, assistant professor in the Department of English and Film Studies at the University of Alberta, Canada. She is the editor of another important collection of Victorian writings called Criminals, Idiots, Women, and Minors: Victorian Writings by Women on Women (2004), and the author of Frances Power Cobbe and Victorian Feminism (2006). The first volume is completely dedicated to Frances Power Cobbe's writings. Born in 1822, she was not only one of the best-known feminist thinkers of her day, but also the leader of the antivivisection movement. In 1875 she founded the Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection, one of the most important antivivisection organizations in England. The second volume presents other important antivivisection papers. The third volume is a collection of provivisection writings; particularly interesting are the pamphlets published by the Association for the Advancement of Medicine by Research founded in 1882. The sources collected in these volumes include articles in the established press (periodicals as well as newspapers), daily news clippings, medical editorials, propagandist pamphlets, government documents, and educational material. As Hamilton suggests, this collection not only "encourages an awareness of the cultural work of gender in the vivisection controversy" (1: xiv), but also "shows the ways in which questions asked from the perspective of women's history can complement those posed by the history of medicine in its approach to the vivisection controversy" (1: xiv–xv). In fact, the discussion about the scientific use of live animals was a complicated mix of different voices: there were those who advocated the new attitudes toward "pets" and new ideas about pain; those who defended the scientific status of physiology; those who tried to introduce and explain the effect of a new medical technology, anesthesia; and those who redefined the concept of "scientific expertise." The bringing of all these papers together will help historians writing their own stories to appreciate the complexity of this rich controversy. Massimo Petrozzi Johns Hopkins University [End Page 497] Eric von der Luft. SUNY Upstate Medical University: A Pictorial History. North Syracuse, N.Y.: Gegensatz Press, 2005. viii + 184 pp. Ill. $18.95 (paperbound, 1-933237-34-1). Histories of medical schools (usually celebratory) continue to appear in a regular fashion. While most are of interest primarily to those...
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.780 | 0.696 |
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".