MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Putnam at the New York Neurological Institute: Clinical Activity and Vulnerability

2008· book-chapter· en· W4388360111 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lewis P. Rowland

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistory of Medical Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionPsychoanalysisPsychologyNeurosurgeryEpilepsySoulNeuroscienceMedicineCognitive sciencePsychiatrySociologyEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There was never anyone as versatile neurologically as Tracy Putnam, not before or since. When he arrived in New York, he had estimable credentials in both neurology and neurosurgery, even also in psychiatry. The closest comparison might have been the great Wilder Penfield, who called himself a “surgical neurologist.” However, Penfield largely restricted his operations to studies of—and treatment for— epilepsy. And he created a great neurological institute in Montreal, where he encouraged Herbert Jasper to join him as electroencephalographer. Together they essentially invented the concept of “temporal lobe epilepsy,” in which the seizures include abnormalities of thought and behavior. These attacks start in areas of the brain that were thought to have been damaged by birth injuries or other trauma. By ingenious surgery, he could excise the seizure focus and relieve the attacks, even though adding more traumatic damage in the process of operating. More than any historical figure in medicine, Penfield showed that the mind is in and of the brain. By stimulating different parts of the brain with an electrical current, he could evoke visions, sounds, and spoken words. Yet, he ended his life as a dualist, believing in a soul separable from the brain. But Penfield did not take on all of neurosurgery himself.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.214 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistory of Medical PracticeFrench-language works237,207