Le suicide à Buenos Aires: la contribution des médecins à sa «thématisation» comme problème social
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1880 and 1910, a new issue began to concern some in the Argentinean medical community: the increase in the suicide rate. The concept of suicide, till then considered to be an individual and private behaviour, changes noticeably. A group of institutions and discussions would increasingly focus as much on the causes of this apparent rise in the suicide rate as on how to reduce their number. Despite the variety of specialities and orientations of the Argentinean doctors (mental health specialists, psychiatrists, psychologists, criminologists and sociologists -before such terms were coined) who try to understand the rise in the number of suicides, there is a fundamental issue at the heart of their analyses: the deficient framework- perceived by them as non-existent-for the new behaviours disturbing the social order, or that the very least, the representaion of this order in the doctors' conceptual universe. Is this a social epidemic? An obsession? Or is it just a nutural mechanism of social selection? Around the complex, process of defining the suicide phenomenon as a social problem, medical discourse sheds light on the shaky ground at the limits between the scientific claim to objectivity for certain behaviours at the renewal of the concept of normalcy in modern societies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".