Bibliographic record
Abstract
La colonisation du Viêtnam par la France intervient dans le cadre d’un synchronisme qui, au XIXe siècle, associe d’une part la domination-exploitation du pays et, d’autre part, la confirmation de la prééminence de la biomédecine dans les politiques de santé européennes et l’essor de l’industrie pharmaceutique occidentale. L’analyse des fonctions des remèdes traditionnels sino-vietnamiens devient alors un formidable outil de compréhension de la rencontre entre deux systèmes médicaux fort différents. De prime abord dénoncés par les autorités coloniales et les médecins français comme un poison mortel à proscrire par tous les moyens, ces remèdes ne sont pas pour autant disparus et ils s’avèrent le révélateur d’une variété de comportements et de réalités associés à un processus de médicalisation ambigu mais aussi difficile à imposer et dont les vestiges sont encore visibles dans les sociétés occidentales pluriculturelles et dans les sociétés asiatiques d’aujourd’hui.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".