MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7123546376 · doi:10.13081/kjmh.2025.34.713

Twilight Sleep and Sunrise Slumber: “Painless Childbirth” in Early Twentieth-Century America

2025· article· en· W7123546376 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ji-Hye SHIN

Bibliographic record

VenueKorean Journal of Medical History · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTwilightUnconscious mindSunriseMidnightScholarshipChildbirthPoliticsBureaucracy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay examines the emergence of obstetric anesthesia through two competing methods for "painless childbirth" in early twentieth-century America: Twilight Sleep and Sunrise Slumber. It explores the ways in which childbirth practices were established in America at the turn of the twentieth century and aims to reveal how contemporary American society accepted these two methods, what distinguished them from one another, and how medical knowledge and techniques competed for dominance. Sunrise Slumber, which involved the inhalation of nitrous oxide, was ultimately adopted in many regions, including Britain, Canada, and Australia. In the United States, however, it could not surpass Twilight Sleep, a method that rendered expectant mothers unconscious through the injection of morphine and scopolamine and had garnered strong support from American women. This essay demonstrates that the adoption of medical technology was shaped more by the political and social circumstances of the time than by its purported objective utility. Furthermore, it contributes to existing scholarship by tracing the history of various anesthetic methods developed to reduce or eliminate labor pain during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 venueKorean Journal of Medical HistorySame topicMedical History and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207