L’invention des médecines alternatives et complémentaires (et traditionnelles) : une généalogie coloniale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si le statut des médecines alternatives et complémentaires (MAC) au Canada à l’heure actuelle n’a a priori pas grand-chose à voir avec celui de la médecine vietnamienne dans le cadre colonial de l’Indochine française, il s’agit dans cet article de proposer une généalogie de la construction des médecines traditionnelles qui permette d’opérer des rapprochements porteurs entre ces deux espaces politiques, légaux, institutionnels et professionnels. Il aborde, par leur mise en perspective, le processus de domestication des MAC, la participation d’acteurs « traditionnels » de la santé à ce processus ainsi que le poids des attentes — et des demandes — populaires sur la construction d’une approche intégrée en santé dans le cadre d’une société métissée et profondément dynamique. En cela, cet article entend participer à renouveler l’historiographie tant de la mondialisation en santé que de la médicalisation et souligner l’importance d’une approche postcoloniale de l’histoire des médecines alternatives.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".