Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le commerce electronique du medicament a ete des ses premices, condamnees autant par le monde scientifique, les professionnelles de la sante que par les decideurs publics. Pourtant, malgre sa « culpabilite incontestable », au regard des derives occasionnees dans le cadre de la sante publique, il s’agit d’une forme de distribution de soins aux potentialites enormes. Placer la circulation en ligne du medicament au « banc des accuses » permet de prendre conscience de l’ampleur du phenomene. L’analyse pragmatique des enjeux juridiques que souleve la vente en ligne du medicament permet de faire le constat selon lequel, il s’agit certainement d’un « phenomene a surveiller » et non a « condamner ». Puisque, malgre les derives liees a la vente en ligne des medicaments, la technologie qui est a l’origine de son developpement peut egalement servir de levier pour construire un systeme de vente legale et securitaire. Car, dans le deni de construire un systeme de distribution legal et adequat, on laisse la place a la proliferation d’un reseau illegal.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".