MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983158454 · doi:10.1093/shm/15.3.457

Regulating Specialties in France during the First Half of the Twentieth Century

2002· article· en· W1983158454 on OpenAlex
George Weisz

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial History of Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCertificationContext (archaeology)State (computer science)Association (psychology)Task (project management)Set (abstract data type)Political scienceProfessional associationPublic administrationLawHistoryManagementPsychologyComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

France lagged several decades behind Germany and the USA in dealing with specialist certification. The reason for this delay, it is argued, has to do with the centralized, state-controlled structure of French medical institutions and with the lack of a powerful national professional association capable of taking on the task. Once such an association did appear in the late 1920s, debate within the profession began in earnest. Nonetheless, it took several years to define an acceptable form of certification from among several possible alternatives and many years more to implement the ambitious national system of state regulation that French doctors wished to introduce. Once the system was established in 1947, the attempt to set rigorous, national rules in a multi-regional and multi-institutional context provoked considerable difficulties and complaints.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it