MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241954769 · doi:10.29173/cons29392

Humana Medicina

2019· article· en· W4241954769 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Abby Riehl

Bibliographic record

VenueConstellations · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperstitionMedical scienceReligious studiesSociologyTheologyPhilosophyEnvironmental ethicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and the concentrated effort to shift away from the teachings of the Catholic Church and towards a rational science rooted in scholastic thought which did not rely on Divine causes and cures for illness. By looking at the growth of the medical programs in Paris and Salerno, northern versus southern trends and attitudes, and the deep influence of not only Christian rituals, but also pagan popular culture, this essay aims to explore the exact nature of the relationship between religion and medicine, and the mediating role that superstition played between them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0980.047

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstellationsSame topicHistory of Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207