MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391615164 · doi:10.3390/histories4010007

Urbanization, Bourgeois Culture, and the Institutionalization of the Frankfurt Neurological Institute by Ludwig Edinger (1855–1918)

2024· article· en· W4391615164 on OpenAlexaff
Frank W. Stahnisch

Bibliographic record

VenueHistories · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBourgeoisieInstitutionalisationUrbanizationSociologyPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ludwig Edinger (1855–1918) is often perceived as a functional neuroanatomist who primarily followed traditional lines of microscopic research. That he was a rather fascinating innovator in the history of neurology at the turn from the nineteenth to the twentieth century has, however, gone quite unnoticed. Edinger’s career and his pronounced hopes for future investigative progress in neurological work mark an important shift, one away from traditional research styles connected to department-based approaches towards a multi-perspective and quite advanced form of interdisciplinary scientific work. Being conceptually influenced by the Austrian neuroanatomist Heinrich Obersteiner (1847–1922) and his foundation of the Neurological Institute in Vienna in 1882, Edinger established a multi-faceted brain research program. It was linked to an institutional setting of laboratory analysis and clinical research that paved the way for a new type of interdisciplinarity. After completion of his medical training, which brought him in working relationships with illustrious clinicians such as Friedrich von Recklinghausen (1810–1879) and Adolf Kussmaul (1822–1902), Edinger settled in 1883 as one of the first clinically working neurologists in the German city of Frankfurt/Main. Here, he began to collaborate with the neuropathologist Carl Weigert (1845–1904), who worked at the independent research institute of the Senckenbergische Anatomie. Since 1902, Edinger came to organize the anatomical collections and equipment for a new brain research laboratory in the recently constructed Senckenbergische Pathologie. It was later renamed the “Neurological Institute”, and became an early interdisciplinary working place for the study of the human nervous system in its comparative, morphological, experimental, and clinical dimensions. Even after Edinger’s death and under the austere circumstances of the Weimar Period, altogether three serviceable divisions continued with fruitful research activities in close alignment: the unit of comparative neurology, the unit of neuropsychology and neuropathology (headed by holist neurologist Kurt Goldstein, 1865–1965), and an associated unit of paleoneurology (chaired by Ludwig Edinger’s daughter Tilly, 1897–1967, who later became a pioneering neuropaleontologist at Harvard University). It was especially the close vicinity of the clinic that attracted Edinger’s attention and led him to conceive a successful model of neurological research, joining together different scientific perspectives in a unique and visibly modern form.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.013
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.204 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoriesSame topicNeurology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207