MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056918210 · doi:10.7202/005360ar

Entre discours et pratiques les médecins montréalais face à la thérapeutique, 1869-1890

2002· article· fr· W2056918210 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Johanne Collin

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d histoire de l Amérique française · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut d'Histoire de l'Amérique Française
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans la perspective large de questionner les aspects sociaux et culturels du recours aux médicaments à différentes époques, cet article se penche sur l'usage de la thérapeutique dans la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle. Il vise à mieux cerner la place du médicament dans les pratiques de santé à une époque charnière du développement de la pharmacothérapie et notamment à scruter les pratiques médicales à cet égard. Qu'en est-il des attitudes des médecins québécois, et plus spécifiquement des médecins montréalais, face à la thérapeutique au cours des dernières décennies du XIXe siècle? Comment prescrivent-ils? Que prescrivent-ils? Comment se situe la réalité de leurs pratiques par rapport au discours médical qui a jusqu'ici constitué la principale source pour saisir l'utilisation de la thérapeutique au XIXe siècle? Ce sont les questions auxquelles nous cherchons réponse à travers l'analyse croisée de deux sources : l'ordonnancier d'un pharmacien montréalais (Henry R. Gray) qui témoigne des pratiques réelles et quotidiennes de prescription des médecins et la presse médicale montréalaise qui permet de retracer le discours médical sur l'usage de la thérapeutique entre 1869 et 1890.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d histoire de l Amérique françaiseSame topicHistorical and Scientific StudiesFrench-language works237,207