MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387670048 · doi:10.15294/paramita.v33i2.45271

Uncertainty and Managing Randomness: The First Documented Cholera Epidemic in Bombay City and Presidency, 1818-1821

2023· article· en· W4387670048 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vivek Neelakantan

Bibliographic record

VenueParamita Historical Studies Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVibrio bacteria research studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaÖsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
KeywordsCholeraPresidencyPolitical sciencePandemicAncient historyHistoryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PoliticsMedicineLawInfectious disease (medical specialty)VirologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 1817 and 1821, the Indian subcontinent was devastated by a series of cholera outbreaks that have subsequently been referred to as the beginning of the First Cholera Pandemic. Although the history of the First Cholera Pandemic has received some scholarly attention, historians tend to overlook the local features of the pandemic in favor of the broader colonial context. In this article, the author contends that the official response to the epidemic in Bombay city and presidency (1818-1821) was initially ameliorative, including recruiting native medical assistants to administer treatment. Such a measure was calculated to cultivate a benevolent image of the colonial government among local inhabitants. Despite considerable nosological and etiological disagreements, members of the Bombay Medical Board characterized cholera as a social disease. Unlike cholera epidemics in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the first cholera epidemic in the Bombay presidency did little to exacerbate antagonism towards the colonial government for two reasons. First, the British power in India was still at its formative stage. Second, both in India and England, cholera was associated with the derangement of bodily humors. On the contrary, the epidemic provided a stimulus to intracommunal discord. Antara tahun 1817 dan 1821, anak benua India dilanda serangkaian wabah kolera yang kemudian disebut sebagai awal dari Pandemi Kolera Pertama. Meskipun sejarah Pandemi Kolera Pertama telah mendapat perhatian ilmiah, para sejarawan cenderung mengabaikan ciri-ciri lokal dari pandemi ini dan lebih memilih konteks kolonial yang lebih luas. Dalam artikel ini, penulis berpendapat bahwa tanggapan resmi terhadap epidemi di kota dan wilayah kepresidenan Bombay (1818-1821) pada awalnya bersifat perbaikan, termasuk merekrut asisten medis pribumi untuk memberikan pengobatan. Tindakan seperti itu diperhitungkan untuk menumbuhkan citra baik pemerintah kolonial di kalangan penduduk setempat. Meskipun ada perbedaan pendapat nosologis dan etiologis, anggota Dewan Medis Bombay menggolongkan kolera sebagai penyakit sosial. Berbeda dengan epidemi kolera pada paruh kedua abad ke-19, epidemi kolera yang pertama pada masa kepresidenan Bombay tidak banyak memperburuk antagonisme terhadap pemerintah kolonial karena dua alasan. Pertama, kekuatan Inggris di India masih dalam tahap pembentukan. Kedua, baik di India maupun Inggris, kolera dikaitkan dengan gangguan humor tubuh. Sebaliknya, epidemi ini memberikan stimulus terhadap perselisihan antar masyarakat.

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)0.001
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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParamita Historical Studies JournalSame topicVibrio bacteria research studiesFrench-language works237,207