MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097324839

Book Reviews THOMAS WILLIS ON THE BRAIN* AN ESSAY REVIEW BY

2013· article· en· W7097324839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistory of Medical Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacsimileFeelingPublishingWork (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few events would have pleased Thomas Willis more than to see the publication of this beautiful edition of his CerebriAnatome in 1964, 300 years after its first production. This delightful memorial to Willis and his work is evidence of the sincere feeling of appreciation, widespread in doctors of the present generation in the New World, for the efforts of our medical forefathers. Here it has been concentrated into the personal dedication of its editor, Dr. Feindel, the distinguished Canadian neurosurgeon. Merely by picking up these remarkable volumes one obtains, quickly and vividly, the feel and flavour of the work of Willis and the times in which he lived. These emanate from the two vellum-covered volumes, from the texture of the specially hand-made Spanish paper, and from the watermark of the Willis crest in its pages. All provide a realistic back-drop for the facsimile production of Pordage's English translation of the work. The first volume is devoted to orientating the reader's appreciation of Willis and his works; the second consists of Pordage's translation of the work itself. A notable contribution in the first volume is the foreword by Wilder Penfield in

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.025

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistory of Medical PracticeFrench-language works237,207