Bibliographic record
Abstract
À la Renaissance, seule l’utilité biologique reconnue aux jeux de Vénus paraît conférer le droit de les pratiquer et d’en parler dans les traités médicaux en langue vulgaire. Mais le plaisir du texte, à l’instar du plaisir sexuel, peut se délier de l’utilité et conduire à savourer ces traités médicaux pour eux-mêmes ou à des fins immodestes, et non pour y puiser des connaissances. C’est ce que nous nous proposons d’examiner dans un corpus de textes médicaux en français du XVIe siècle et du début du XVIIe siècle (Joubert, Cabrol, Ferrand, Duval) marquant une étape décisive dans l’histoire de l’émergence d’un savoir médical vernaculaire et traitant de sujets délicats comme la gynécologie et la génération. Cette littérature exhibe et exalte la complicité de la connaissance et du désir. Elle travestit l’observation médicale en possession sexuelle, en déclinant sur un mode plus rabelaisien l’image éthérée du Banquet de Platon, où l’amour guide l’âme vers la science. In the Renaissance, it is only the biological use of the games of Venus which seemed to give the right to practice them or to discuss them in vernacular in medical treaties. But the enjoyment of the text, much like sexual pleasure, can be liberated from its function leading us to enjoy these medical treaties for themselves or for immodest purposes, and not for the information or knowledge they contain. We propose to examine a corpus of French medical texts from the 16th and early 17th centuries (Joubert, Cabrol, Ferrand, Duval) in this way. These texts mark a decisive step in the history of the emergence of a vernacular medical knowledge discussing such delicate subjects as gynecology and reproduction. This literature shows and exalts the complicity of knowledge and desire. It dresses up sexual possession as medical observation, expressing the ethereal image of the Plato’s Symposium, in which love guides the soul towards science, on a much more Rabelaisian mode.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".