MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240870423 · doi:10.4000/amades.582

Débat – L’anthropologie médicale, quels acquis, quels horizons ?

2004· article· ca· W4240870423 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin Amades · 2004
Typearticle
Languageca
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecologyPolitical scienceMedicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans la foulée de l’invitation faite par Jean Benoist et Alice Desclaux pour débattre de la « routine » et de l’essoufflement de l’anthropologie médicale, je me permets un plaidoyer pour une reculturalisation partielle de l’étude des rapports de l’individu avec la maladie. Pourquoi plaider pour un concept désormais honni par l’anthropologie contemporaine ? Et bien, justement peut-être notre discipline se doit de défendre non seulement le pluralisme dans les modes de vie, mais aussi la plurali...

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.016

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.353 · 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