MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W606183518 · doi:10.59962/9780774814782

Brock Chisholm, the World Health Organization, and the Cold War

2009· book· en· W606183518 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Farley

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of British Columbia Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical Medical Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterimFamineCold warIndex (typography)PoliticsMalariaHistoryEconomic historyLawPolitical scienceAncient historyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the story of a man and an institution. Brock Chisholm was one of the most influential Canadians of the twentieth century. A world-renowned psychiatrist, he was the first director-general of the World Health Organization, and built it up against overwhelming political odds in the years immediately following the Second World War. During Chisholm’s lifetime, the only other Canadians as internationally prominent were Lester B. Pearson and Marshall McLuhan. Yet today he has been largely forgotten – perhaps because he was so controversial. An atheist and a fierce critic of jingoistic nationalism, he supported world peace and world government and became a champion of the United Nations and the WHO. Official histories of the WHO place the organization in a political vacuum, but John Farley focuses on the battles Chisholm and his allies waged during the early Cold War, as the United States and the Soviet Union eyed each other warily and the Roman Catholic Church flexed its muscle on morally sensitive medical issues. Post-1945 international politics, global health issues, and medical history intersect in this highly readable account of a remarkable Canadian.

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)0.002
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 score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations83
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of British Columbia Press eBooksSame topicHistorical Medical Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207