Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract If, after its experience in Brazil, the Health Board decided to devote its major effort to opening only model schools in Europe and North America, they failed. In the end they came to support a wide range of schools, more in line with Rose’s earlier vision than with Welch’s. According to Andrew Warren, Assistant Director of the IHD, who surveyed the schools of hygiene in 1939, they had a range of purposes. Some were service-oriented, while others emphasized the training of physicians for public health work. Research was not totally forgotten as the Health Board tried “to create centers in which scientific and routine work could be carried on in the interests of matters connected with hygiene.” Funding began with Prague in 1921, and others quickly followed: London in 1922; Warsaw, 1923; Budapest, Zagreb, and Toronto, 1925; Rome, 1930; and Tokyo in 1933, to name but a few of them. In 1938 the Health Division stepped into the All India Institute of Hygiene, which had been endowed a few years earlier by the Division of Medical Education. These schools differed significantly from each other. London emphasized research, with no service functions whatsoever. In Rome and Toronto, service played an important part. Others, such as Prague, Budapest, and Zagreb, were basically teaching and service institutes. Their role was also to transplant American scientific models of public health, with all their imperfections, to these and other countries. The faculty of these schools had to be trained at the three most important schools: Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, Toronto, or London.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.002 |
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".