The French Paracelsians: The Chemical Challenge to Medical and Scientific Tradition in Early Modern France
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (1977) and Man and Nature in the Renaissance (1987), as well as papers concerning Spain, Portugal and even the Ottoman Empire.His latest work examines the history ofParacelsianism in France, where it played a particularly complex and prolonged part in the evolution of chemistry.At the beginning of the sixteenth century, Arabic medical texts were being replaced by Galenic translations, humanism's contribution to medicine, along with the Corpus Hermeticum, which stressed the relatedness of macrocosm and microcosm in the unity of the universe, a view also held by Paracelsus (1493-1 54 1 ) himself.By the middle of the century a strong disagreement erupted between the followers of Paracelsus, who considered themselves as innovators, and the French medical establishment, notably the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Paris, which held fast to the Galenic tradition.Debus examines the entire mass of textual evidence, which stems from many French and Swiss cities in addition to Paris, and spreads well into the eighteenth century.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it