La stratégie matérialiste d’Henry Howard médecin aliéniste québécois (1815-1887)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the end of the 19th century, Henry Howard appeared as the first Quebec "aliéniste" to attempt to develop an inclusive theoretical treatise on the question of madness. Why this sudden upheaval ? There existed numerous european theories ; that might have sufficed. The author attempts to show the multiple connections of this theoretical pro-lect to the socio-political problems of québécois society. Howard tries, from the perspective of the theory which he elaborates, to intervene in the major discussions affecting Quebec: ultra montanism, the problem of universal compusory education, public morality. At a more professional level he attempts to intervene in the legal dispute opposing judicial and medical competence in the cases of insanity pleas, as well as in the question of the scientific and social status of the "aliéniste". The involvement in these struggles manifests itself in Howard's treatise as much at the level of the concepts themselves, and their architecture, as at the thematic level and in the applications which he naturally draws. It is not onty external and contingent but works on the text from the inside as well. The article attempts to suggest that at the very moment that the treatise on the alienated-which would become the "science" that we know today- seeks to structure itself into a theory, it cannot break its attachment to its determining social context and that, ignoring its ideological role it, in truth, succeeds only in creating illusion and the impression of a progressive process, all the while being circumstantial and having a verted interest.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.002 |
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".