MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414995696 · doi:10.1177/09677720251381020

Arthur William Mickle Ellis (1883–1966): Canadian doctor, Rockefeller physician, army medic, medical director and university professor

2025· article· en· W4414995696 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Edward J. Wawrzynczak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Biography · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistory of Medical Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFirst world warWorld War IISpanish Civil WarBiographyMedical careAcademic medicinePosition (finance)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir Arthur William Mickle Ellis (1883-1966) was born, raised and educated in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He had a distinguished medical career in North America and Europe which spanned important developments in medical research and education and culminated in appointment as Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford University. He was a resident physician at the newly created Hospital of the Rockefeller Institute before the start of World War I. Serving with the Canadian Army Medical Corps in England, and responsible for the care of soldiers taken sick with highly virulent cerebrospinal meningitis, Ellis attempted an ambitious therapy and undertook laboratory investigations that impacted management of the disease directly. After the war, he became the Director of the Medical Unit and the first Professor of Medicine in the University of London at the London Hospital, and subsequently Regius Professor of Medicine in Oxford in World War II. As a research-driven academic physician, the career of Sir Arthur Ellis was influenced profoundly by Sir William Osler (1849-1919), the first Canadian to hold the position of Regius Professor in Oxford.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.007

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.264 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical BiographySame topicHistory of Medical PracticeFrench-language works237,207