MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282917256 · doi:10.1093/jhmas/jrac016

The Tyranny of Distance: The Treatment and Prevention of Diphtheria in Middle Canada, 1894-1920

2022· article· en· W4282917256 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan R. Rushton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiphtheria, Corynebacterium, and Tetanus
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntitoxinDiphtheriaMedicinePediatricsDiseaseEnvironmental healthDemographyFamily medicineImmunologyVaccinationInternal medicineSociologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Before 1900, diphtheria was a deadly infection in Canadian children. Clinical trials in Europe demonstrated that "antitoxin" decreased mortality of the disease. Canadian physicians first utilized the new medication in 1894 and found it most efficacious when administered early in the illness. Two factors hindered the widespread application of the new medication. Imported antitoxin was expensive, and physicians frequently purchased it themselves rather than let their patients expire. In 1916, Connaught Laboratories in Toronto began domestic production of antitoxin, and provincial governments eventually provided access to the life-saving medication for all citizens. The vast distances between families and physicians in rural districts also made it impossible to access the antitoxin before sick children were beyond hope. During the 1920s, a public health program began to actually prevent diphtheria. Ten years of experience in many regions demonstrated the efficacy of immunization as mortality from diphtheria declined to almost zero.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the History of Medicine and Allied SciencesSame topicDiphtheria, Corynebacterium, and TetanusFrench-language works237,207