[L'image de la posture--l'image du mouvement: on the relationship between orthopaedic and neurological forms of representation in 19th century clinical photography].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of how medicine represents and documents malfunctions and deviances of human posture and movement is intrinsically linked to the problem of how those occurrences, which can be seen as the end result of medical treatment and manipulations, could be identified and classified. In fact, the relation of posture and movement is reciprocally interconnected: The "normality" of either state cannot be established or clinically reproduced without knowledge of the other. Both conditions of posture and movement serve as reference points for each other and help to distinguish between the dynamics of physiology and illness over the course of time. It is therefore understandable that orthopaedic surgeons and neurologists in particular, with a deeper interest in orthopaedic applications, were crucially involved in the collection of special cases of posture and movement disorders from their clinical experience. Not simply for didactic purposes, but likewise for the benefit of documenting their own treatment success, they strove to accurately depict severe cases of posture and movement disorders with the new visualization technique of photography. Clinical photography's allegedly "realistic capacity of representation" predestined the new method for capturing long-term processes of illness and therapy in collections of serial images. However, the very early clinical photographs of the 19th century had their origins rather in areas of psychiatric and neurological uses, and it was not until much later that clinical photography made its way into the surgical and orthopaedic fields of medicine. This article scrutinizes some of the intricate relations, which can be found in the neurological and orthopaedic representations of posture and movement as depicted in early clinical photography.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".