Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the 1920s, the Health Board endowed two schools of hygiene, one in London and the other in Toronto, which they regarded as model institutions, sharing with Johns Hopkins the distinction of being centers of research with the very highest standards-and so recipients of by far the most funding. At the same time, it turned its back on Rio and hospital schools of nursing, deciding instead to endow university schools of nursing, none more important than that at the University of Toronto. The Brazilian experiments were not to be repeated. Initially, both London and Toronto were seen as schools of the British empire, the former the central home and the latter serving Canada and the British Caribbean. Once the idea that schools should be opened in the poorer countries had seemingly been abandoned, London and Toronto would have seemed the logical next step where colonial nationals could be trained in first-class institutions. But such a smooth transition did not occur. European schools that had no link with the tropics predated the Health Board’s endowments of London and Toronto, although the European schools were never to attain the same status as Toronto and London. And in the end, the Health Board seemed more concerned with opening schools of hygiene in London and Toronto to serve the health needs of the British and Canadians than in creating centers of colonial training. Clearly, the Health Board’s attention was turning northward away from the problems of the tropical and colonial countries where they had started.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.138 | 0.033 |
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".