MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283723411 · doi:10.1525/jsah.2022.81.2.154

That the Best Physician Is Also an Architect: Medicine and Practice in the Life and Works of Louis Savot (ca. 1579–1640)

2022· article· en· W4283723411 on OpenAlexaff
Georges Farhat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Society of Architectural Historians · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Art and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolymathArchitectureMedical practiceSociologyApothecaryApothecaries' systemArt historyLawClassicsMedicineVisual artsMedical educationArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historians have long regarded Louis Savot as a physician who, having given up medical practice, became a dilettante polymath and published L’architecture françoise des bastimens particuliers (1624), a manual for builders and a reference book. Yet these scholars never question the practical sources of L’architecture or the actual circumstances of its author’s life. In That the Best Physician Is Also an Architect: Medicine and Practice in the Life and Works of Louis Savot (ca. 1579–1640), Georges Farhat addresses such inconsistencies by exploring how, instead, Savot’s education and permanent practice of medicine intersected with his pursuits in other technical fields. To better understand Savot’s notion of architectural practice, Farhat reconstructs the overlooked network of events, patron-patients, and institutions that, along with design projects and professional encounters, shaped the physician’s publication. This close study of L’architecture reveals how Savot’s approach to the art of building was critically informed by Galenic medicine.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.024
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Society of Architectural HistoriansSame topicHistorical Art and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207