Témoignage de l'actualité médicale du temps: <i>Le Mallade</i> de Marguerite de Navarre (<i>c</i>. 1535)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Written around 1535, Le Mallade bears witness, as V.-L. Saulnier puts it, to Marguerite de Navarre’s effort to reconcile the official Church dogma with the new Evangelical faith following the Affaire des Placards. But in addition to its documentary value for France’s religious history, this play presents a real scientific interest, which has been neglected until now. Specifically, Le Mallade deals with sixteenth-century attitudes towards sickness and health, different types of medical approaches, and various debates which divided the medical circles of the time on such questions as surgery, bloodletting, and human suffering. This article also examines related issues, including remedies, superstitions, the cult of saints, and the relation between science and faith, as well as a woman’s duty to assist her husband and her family members in sickness and health. Marguerite de Navarre’s intention was to show that “God is the true savior of man.” In order to authenticate the medical metaphor familiar to contemporary Christians that conveyed this idea (“Deus medicus”) and create a sense of urgency, she represents the daily suffering of a patient and the inefficicacy of the medical care that he receives. As for the figure of the charitable, caring wife, it provided a means by which Marguerite could rehabilitate her own image in the trying times that followed the year 1534.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".