MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414087017 · doi:10.1136/medhum-2024-013132

Relevance of Georg Grosz’s Weimar-era drawings to promoting social justice and health equity in contemporary society

2025· article· en· W4414087017 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Dennis Raphael

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Humanities · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
FundersYork University
KeywordsEquity (law)PoliticsHealth careSocial determinants of healthSocial justiceThe artsContemporary societyEmpathy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The arts and humanities can direct attention to the health-threatening effects of adverse living and working conditions and the political and economic systems that spawn them. Most of these efforts aim to improve healthcare by promoting empathy and sensitivity among health professionals towards patients and improving clinical skills. However, less effort is devoted towards improving living and working conditions-the structural and social determinants of health-that cause illness and make managing illness difficult. Using the arts and humanities to suggest how society could be changed to promote health is even less common, especially in regard to our economic system of capitalism. In this paper, we consider how the acerbic art of Georg Grosz, which critiqued the political, economic and social life of Weimar-period Germany, may find renewed relevance to the contemporary scene in Canada and other nations under the thrall of neoliberal approaches to governance. We suggest that Grosz's art can be a rich stimulus for promoting social justice and health equity through reflection and discussion, research, and then action to direct attention to how living and working conditions threaten health and how the economic and political systems that create these health-threatening conditions can be reformed or replaced. These activities can take place in classrooms, as part of professional development activities, or form the basis of research studies and advocacy efforts. Evidence of the usefulness of this approach obtained through discussions with undergraduate health studies students is presented.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.657
GPT teacher head0.658
Teacher spread0.000 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical HumanitiesSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207