PERSPECTIVE The Halifax disaster (1917): eye injuries and their care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Explosions, man-made and accidental, continue to require improved emergency medical responses. In the 1917 Halifax Explosion, an inordinate number of penetrating eye injuries occurred. A review of their treatment provides insight into a traumatic event with unique ophthalmological importance. Archived personal and government documents relating to the Halifax Explosion were reviewed at the Public Archives of Nova Scotia, Canada, along with a review of current literature. Twelve ophthalmologists treated 592 people with eye injuries and performed 249 enucleations. Sixteen people had both eyes enucleated. Most of the eye injuries were caused by shards of shattered glass. A Blind Relief Fund was established to help treat and rehabilitate the visually impaired. The injured were given pensions through the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, which continue to this day. Sympathetic ophthalmia was the feared complication for penetrating eye injuries and a common indication for enucleation in 1917. Even so, the severity and the overwhelming number of eye injuries sustained during the Halifax Explosion made it impossible for lengthy eye-saving procedures to be performed. Enucleation was often the only option. See end of article for authors ’ affiliations
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".