MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1487107217 · doi:10.7202/044199ar

L’automédication

2010· article· fr· W1487107217 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropologie et Sociétés · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceDicationPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aujourd’hui plus que jamais, la pratique de l’automédication fait l’objet d’une grande attention, tant des milieux professionnels de la santé que des sciences sociales. Non pas parce que la pratique serait nouvelle, mais parce qu’elle est nouvellement encouragée, en France, par les politiques publiques. À ce titre, il convient de s’interroger sur la question de savoir quelles sont, dans ce nouveau contexte, les motivations et les conditions de ce recours. On montrera ici, à partir d’enquêtes de terrain, que le recours à l’automédication ne se limite pas à soigner des pathologies bénignes, comme le préconisent les messages sanitaires, ou à répondre aux nouvelles mesures économiques qui accompagnent l’accès aux médicaments, mais correspond parfois aussi à une tentative de contournement des médecins généralistes, équivalant ainsi à une stratégie d’esquive.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1670.006

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 head0.471
GPT teacher head0.718
Teacher spread0.246 · 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