The fable of “The Doctor and the Goose,” by Charles Chauvin Boisclair Deléry, D.M.P.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Charles Chauvin Boisclair Deléry, D.M.P. - doctor of medicine of Paris, was perhaps the prototypical representative of Creole physicians, practising medicine in Louisiana in the 1800s, who were regarded as being equally proficient with pen, pills or pistols. This paper presents accounts of Deléry's yellow fever debate with Jean-Charles Faget, D.M.P., and their near duel, and his famous duel with Joseph Rouanet. Because of the personal and professional need to maintain honor, Rouanet may have challenged Deléry to a duel, not only because of vociferous disagreements between them over blood transfusion safety and efficacy, but due to Deléry's humiliation of Rouanet in his fable, "the Doctor and the Goose." We recovered the poem, transcribed and translated it, and discuss it as a device of witty rhetorical persuasion-a technique of the time used to belittle one's learned opponents. Fortunately, Deléry was not as equally proficient with pens and pistols, as both he and Rouanet survived the duel.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".