MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288704166 · doi:10.3138/cras-2022-009

The Sentimental Physician: J. Marion Sims’s<i>Story of My Life</i>

2022· article· en· W4288704166 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maddi Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSentimentalityBiographyPerformative utteranceNarrativeLife writingLiteratureRhetoricArtHistoryAestheticsPhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The career of Dr. J. Marion Sims, considered the “father of modern gynecology,” culminated with his autobiography. Story of My Life signals the interdependency of American medicine and nineteenth-century print culture, which furthered the demand for physicians’ life narratives. Published posthumously in 1884, Sims’s autobiography is informed by abolitionist sensationalism and sentimentality. Though his work depended on the exploitation and labour of enslaved women, Sims represents himself and his patients sentimentally, in ways that dismiss his culpability in the violence of slavery while legitimizing his authorial voice. By examining how medicine and sentiment intersect within Sims’s autobiography, this paper demonstrates how Sims’s performative affect, together with nineteenth-century sexual and racial politics, granted him unmitigated access to enslaved women’s bodies. The rhetoric of sentimentality deployed in Story of My Life functions to secure Sims’s authority and innocence as a benevolent physician, erasing the labour and embodied experience of the enslaved women he experimented on.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207