Bibliographic record
Abstract
they were encouraged by antivaccina-tion quacks. The reader can’t help calling to mind not just the many and varied religious sects that refuse vaccinations to this day, but also the many thousands of New Age parents, most famously in Southern California, who, preventing their chil-dren from being immunized in the mis-guided belief that vaccines cause autism, have helped fan a resurgence of pertussis and outbreaks of measles.1 Even more disturbing is the false belief that we have conquered AIDS. In spite of pharmaceutical advances, AIDS remains a global plague without a cure. As engaging as the book is, it still reads a bit too much like an oral presen-tation. Ideally, it should have included an audio CD of the original lectures (or at least a link to them online), and hope-fully will be published in French. With the decline in courses in the history of medicine at medical schools, The Making of Modern Medicine should be required reading for every entering medical student, and then revisited and discussed after the student has had some experience interacting with patients. We urgently need to get Osler’s message, channeled by Bliss, to the next generation of physicians about the eternal importance of spirituality in medicine. One of the most touching and almost too-good-to-be-true moments described in The Making of Modern Medicine is of Osler’s exem-plification of the art of healing by his feeding of a sliced peach every day at bedside to a little boy with whooping cough. And in a heart-warming historical twist at the close of the book, Bliss connects Osler, Osler’s father, and Banting in a deeply personal way. Osler was the devoted son of an Anglican priest — a “backwoods clergyman cum physician ” in rural Ontario — who himself “ministered to the sick with priestly caring. ” One-hundred-and-fifty years later, through the multifarious strides in the diagnosis and treatment of disease, all physicians should continue to aspire to this same ideal.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.571 | 0.394 |
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".