MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620066429 · doi:10.7202/1033944ar

Les médecines parallèles. La question des modèles épistémologiques

2015· article· fr· W2620066429 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Madeleine Moulin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Community Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le propos général de ce texte est de montrer que l’étude des médecines parallèles nécessite une approche interdisciplinaire, et ce en raison même du recours de ces médecines à d’autres modèles épistémologiques que ceux de la science classique. Pour l’auteure, il est cependant hors de propos de suggérer des protocoles de recherche particuliers. Il s’agit plutôt de souligner la nécessité que la sociologie et l’ensemble des sciences humaines tiennent compte des questionnements et des ouvertures épistémologiques posés par les disciplines dites dures, et les intègrent. À cet égard, le recours aux médecines parallèles est un objet d’étude d’autant plus pertinent qu’il place au centre des interrogations sur le sens les rapports entre la « volonté de savoir » proposée par le modèle bio-médical et l’« humaine diversité » telle que la recherche anthropologique l’appréhende.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.222
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Community DevelopmentSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207