« Full and Useful Lives » : La déficience intellectuelle au sein du discours médical canadien (1956–1972)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les articles publiés entre 1956 et 1972 au sein du Canadian Medical Association Journal ( CMAJ) et du Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal ( CPAJ) témoignent d’un certain intérêt de la communauté médicale canadienne pour le retard mental. Celle-ci se préoccupe tout particulièrement du poids économique que représente – d’après elle – le « retardé mental » et de la capacité de ce dernier à atteindre une autonomie suffisante pour être productif. Dans cet article, nous mettons en lumière l’ambition de disciplinarisation du retardé mental qui transparaît du corpus analysé. Nous analysons d’abord les propos tenus sur le diagnostic de retard mental, puis ceux portant sur les traitements, les soins et les services jugés pertinents. Enfin, nous examinons le discours véhiculé dans les deux revues sur les échecs de l’entreprise médicale d’autonomisation et de majoration économique du retardé mental.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".