MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286608437 · doi:10.26443/fo.v13i.249

The Volumes of the Royal Medical Society of France, 1776–1793: a Window into Innovation, Patronage and Experimentation

2013· article· en· W2286608437 on OpenAlex
Daniel J. Hickey

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFontanus · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPublishingLibrary scienceMedicineHistoryPolitical scienceArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1776, Doctors Vicq d’Azyr and Joseph de Lassone founded the Royal Medical Society of France and that same year the new Society began publishing an annual volume of news of medical interest, obituaries on the deaths of outstanding doctors and surgeons, articles on new medicine and drugs, on new operations as well as reflecting on the causes of different diseases and illnesses. Between 1776 and 1793, ten of these volumes were published under the title Histoire de la Société Royale de Médecine: histoire et mémoires. The Osler Library of the History of Medicine possesses four of them. Breaking with the tradition of Galen and with the diagnoses based on bookish knowledge, the members of this group favoured experimentation, the dissection of corpses and the close observation of the symptoms of the sick and the dying. This article looks at two aspects of their work: first it examines the goals and the structures of the Society that published the volumes and second, it analyses the organization and the types of articles published in the annual volumes.ResuméLes médecins Vicq d’Azyr et Joseph de Lassone ont fondé la Société royale de médecine en 1776 et aussitôt la nouvelle société a commencé à organiser la publication annuelle d’un volume de nouvelles d’intérêt médicales. Il devrait comporter les avis de décès des médecins et chirurgiens de renom, les articles sur des médicaments et drogues qui venaient d’être mis sur le marché, les interventions particulièrement innovatrices et les réflexions sur les causes de différentes maladies et épidémies. Entre 1776 et 1793, dix de ces volumes sont apparus sous le titre, Histoire de la Société Royale de Médecine: histoire et mémoires. La bibliothèque Osler de l’histoire de médecine détient quatre de ces volumes. Les articles des membres de ce groupe rompent avec la tradition de Galien et avec les diagnostics fondés sur les connaissances livresques. Ils favorisent l’expérimentation, la dissection des cadavres et l’observation des symptômes présentés par les maladies et les mourantes. Cet article étudie deux aspects de ces travaux: d’abord, il décrit les buts et les structures de la Société elle-même et second, il analyse l’organisation et les types d’articles publiés dans les volumes annuels.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · 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