Les prises en charge alternatives du cancer au Canada (1914-1950) / Barbara Clow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Points de vue populaires, politiques et professionnels sur les prises en charge alternatives du cancer au Canada (1914-1950) - Popular, political and professional perspectives on alternative cancer care in Canada, 1914-50 / Barbara Clow. Dans Histoire du cancer (1750-1950), colloque international organise par le laboratoire FRAMESPA (universite Toulouse II-Le Mirail), l'Institut Claudius Regaud et le Centre d'Etudes d'Histoire de la Medecine. Toulouse : Universite Toulouse II-Le Mirail, Institut Claudius Regaud, 20-22 janvier 2011. Thematique 3 : Institutionnalisation de la lutte contre le cancer (1914-1950), 22 janvier 2011. In many parts of the world, the medical profession spear-headed the fight against cancer during the twentieth century: undertaking research, leading campaigns to build hospitals, advising governments on public policy, and supporting organizations dedicated to public education. In the process, the medical profession consolidated its leadership of the cancer establishment. While doctors have undoubtedly been integral to the institutionalization of cancer care, their authority has not been uncontested. In early-twentieth-century Canada, the perspectives of patients, politicians and alternative practitioners also influenced the institutionalization of cancer care, constraining the power of the medical profession to dictate policy, practice standards, and therapeutic choices. > [La communication en anglais de M. Charles Hayter est traduite en simultane en francais par Madame Solange Hibbs, directrice du Centre de Traduction, d'Interpretation et de Mediation linguistique (CETIM) de l'Universite Toulouse II-Le Mirail].
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".