Mining Medical Journals: Religion and Ideology in Nineteenth-Century Medicine.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a multidisciplinary project, IMPRESS, which combines the digitization of three major nineteenth-century Belgian medical journals with a historical research project on the role of ideology in nineteenth-century Belgian medicine. We focus on the extent to which text mining has allowed us to identify and evaluate expressions of ideology in a corpus of medical texts. In showing how we used the digital tool AntConc to answer typically historical research questions, we intend to contribute to current debate on the gains and limitations of digital methods in the humanities. We conclude that, while acknowledging the many interpretative interventions in preparing searches and qualifying outcomes, the use of the tool has enabled us to shed new light on the role of ideology in scientific exchange. Text- mining operations have offered a fresh insight into the chronology of ideological vocabulary, the used language, and the distribution of ideological patterns across journal sections.Dans cet article, nous présentons un projet multidisciplinaire, IMPRESS, qui fusionne la numérisation de trois journaux médicaux belges du 19e siècle avec un projet de recherche historique enquêtant sur le rôle de l’idéologie dans la médecine belge au 19e siècle. Nous nous concentrons sur la mesure dans laquelle la fouille de textes nous permet d’identifier et d’évaluer des expressions d’idéologie dans un corpus de textes médicaux. En montrant la façon dont nous avons employé l’outil numérique AntConc afin de répondre à des questions de recherche typiquement historiques, nous avons l’intention de contribuer au débat actuel sur les avantages et désavantages de méthodes numériques dans les humanités. Tout en reconnaissant les diverses interventions interprétatives dans la préparation de recherches et dans la qualification de résultats, nous concluons que l’usage de l’outil nous permet de jeter un nouvel éclairage sur le rôle de l’idéologie dans l’échange scientifique. Les opérations de la fouille de textes ont fourni un nouvel aperçu de la chronologie du vocabulaire idéologique, du langage utilisé et de la distribution de motifs idéologiques à travers des sections de journal.
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".