MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2021920655 · doi:10.1215/00182168-86-1-183

Nas trincheiras da cura: As diferentes medicinas no Rio de Janeiro Imperial

2006· article· pt· W2021920655 sur OpenAlexaff
Roderick J. Barman

Notice bibliographique

RevueHispanic American Historical Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languept
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueHistory of Medicine and Tropical Health
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIntervention (counseling)NoticeMonopolyMedicineEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceLawNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Human beings fall sick; sometimes they recover, but at times they die. Human intervention — whether psychological, surgical, or pharmaceutical — seeks to prevent death and promote recovery. Such intervention is uncertain and sometimes even counterproductive. This reality explains why, in the Western world, the practice of healing (what we term medicine) is so contested and so intolerant. Competing schools claim exclusive effectiveness for their therapeutics, seek to gain a monopoly of healing, and denounce rivals as charlatans and butchers. Dominant schools make training laborious, exclusive, and costly, as are the charges for medical care. Such tactics are self-defeating. Alternative therapeutics flourish because they are less expensive and because, historically, orthodox medicine has so often been crude and ineffective. The very illicitness of alternative medicines and the boldness of their claims make them the more alluring. (Just the other morning I saw in the window of an alternative healing center a notice: “We believe in miracles.”)Gabriel dos Reis Sampaio’s Nas trincheiras da cura studies orthodox and alternative therapeutics as they battled each other in Rio de Janeiro during the final decade of the imperial regime. As the title indicates, it was a trench war — intense, exhausting, destructive — that, in the last analysis, achieved very little. Despite the efforts of the orthodox doctors, seconded by the press and aided by the local health and police authorities, the curandeiros, the alternative healers, were not eliminated, nor were their activities long disrupted. The attempts of the local authorities to regulate and so control health practitioners may, as the author claims (p. 118), have intensified in the final years of the Empire, but the cases she cites do not suggest much effectiveness in their actions. Similarly, the press denounced the curandeiros as “barbarous” but was quite as capable of excoriating orthodox doctors for their failures and pretensions. Finally, the medical profession itself devoted as much time and energy to internal feuds as to attacks on alternative healers.In her introduction (perhaps the most effective part of the book), the author explains that the first chapter will study the inefficacy of orthodox medicine; the second, the disillusionment of the ordinary population with orthodox remedies and their resort to alternative therapeutics; and the third, the treatment by health authorities of the whole range of unlicensed (but not necessarily alternative) healers. The actual text does not follow the schema at all closely. Each chapter contains a little of everything. Part of the difficulty is that the work, a revision of a master’s thesis, does not display the conceptual rigor the topic requires. The text contains too many case studies narrated at length and too many summaries of the opinions and findings of experts the author has consulted.Compounding the problem of conceptual focus is the author’s inadequate understanding of the historical context. She does grasp the identification of scientific medicine with “civilization” in the minds of the Brazilian elite — an identification promoted, as she points out (p. 24), by the Sociedade de Medicina founded in 1829, later the Academia Imperial de Medicina. What she does not appreciate is that the key figures in these two entities had been trained at the Faculté de Medicine at Paris. French medicine was accepted into the twentieth century as the epitome of the “civilization” to which Brazil aspired. In 1922, the Brazilian government endowed a chair in the Paris Faculté de Medicine in recognition of this debt. Similarly, the author observes that “throughout the Second Reign, Brazilian intellectuals who were doctors strove to obtain greater prestige and influence with the authorities of the Imperial government” (p. 111). Here, too, she does not appreciate that such doctors were the imperial authorities. Witness José Martins da Cruz Jobim and Luís Carlos da Fonseca, both of them MDs of the Paris faculty, professors of the Rio Medical School, senators, doctors at court, and so close associates of Emperor Pedro II.Also absent from the work is any grasp of the broader international context necessary for an effective analysis of orthodox medicine in Brazil. Take, for example, the issue of state “licensing,” and so control, of healers. In Great Britain, the Medical Council and its register was not established until 1858. In the United States, orthodox medicine lost in the early republic all privileged status in relation to alternative therapeutics and did not regain it until the Flexner Report of 1910. The discussion of licensing and state control in chapter 3 would gain both depth and power if reference were made to these trends outside of Brazil.These criticisms should not deter anyone from reading the book. Gabriel dos Reis Sampaio has produced a work written in an engaging style and showing considerable intelligence. The author is to be commended for calling our attention to an important subject.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,995
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,098

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,011
Communication savante0,0040,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,286
Écart entre enseignants0,258 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations131
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHispanic American Historical ReviewMême sujetHistory of Medicine and Tropical HealthTravaux en français237 207