Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans une perspective de sociologie de la science, il s’agit de cerner les enjeux cognitifs et sociaux liés à l’exercice des médecines douces. Le principal est celui de l’autonomie conceptuelle : du point de vue cognitif, les praticiens se « bricolent » une vision du monde, une vision scientifique du corps et de la santé; du point de vue social, ils tentent d’acquérir de l’autonomie professionnelle, à la fois dans l’exercice de leur activité thérapeutique en tant que telle et par rapport à d’autres professions et corporations du secteur de la santé. Pour accéder au discours de ces praticiens, on a procédé à une analyse de contenu des annonces publiées dans une revue consacrée à ces nouvelles médecines, le Guide Ressources. Il en ressort que, des nombreuses virtualités du mouvement — narcissisme ou nouveau rapport social à la nature —, il est encore difficile de cerner laquelle l’emportera; mais tout gravite autour de l’autonomie.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.005 |
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".