Du discours savant à l’expérience subjective de la maladie hypertensive ou lorsque le sens est mis à risque
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Par son geste préventif, la médecine ouvre la voix à de nouvelles façons de voir et de faire sur les questions de santé et de maladie. La médecine le fait au moyen de ses nombreux programmes populationnels de surveillance des états de santé, par la divulgation quotidienne et incessante de données nouvelles sur les risques en santé ou encore, par l’identification et la transmission objective et scientifique à des individus des risques en santé. La médecine commande alors de s’investir dans une quête de sens, mais sans pouvoir véritablement formuler pour eux-mêmes et de manière autonome leur propre expérience de la maladie. Dans cet article, nous avançons que le discours savant sur le risque, en particulier dans le contexte de soins de l’hypertension artérielle, a comme effet d’exposer la personne atteinte à un risque, celui d’être contrainte sur le plan de la construction du sens.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".