MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385725620 · doi:10.1093/notesj/gjad059

More About Moore: The Celebrated Worm Doctor and his Practice in London, 1699–1737

2023· article· en· W4385725620 on OpenAlexaff
Allison Muri, Pat Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueNotes and Queries · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt historyHistoryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

John Moore (d. April 1737), apothecary, is probably best known as the retailer of powders and ointments for treating tapeworm and other worm infections, which he advertised in London papers with formulaic attestations by satisfied customers and announcements of worms of sensational size and conformation. One such ad, for example, informs readers of the worms ‘to be seen at the said Mr Moor’s, viz. one 30 Foot long, another 5 and an half, being part of one of 16 Yards odd Inches; another 6 Yards and half, another 50 Foot, and another in form of a Bird, but very small’.1 If Moore’s fame did not arise singlehandedly from his own prodigious volume of peculiar and graphic advertisements, it was undoubtedly enhanced by the publication of satires such as Alexander Pope’s ballad To the Ingenious Mr Moore, Author of the Celebrated Worm-Powder (1716). No doubt readers could locate precisely where Moore vended his medicines. We know considerably less today: that his shop the Pestle and Mortar in Abchurch Lane by 1736 moved to Laurence Pountney Lane, on the left-hand side going south from Cannon Street.2 Little else has been discovered about the man the Scriblerians loved to mock.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.016

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNotes and QueriesSame topicMedical History and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207