De l’automédication au monopole de la prescription d’antalgiques : processus de confiscation d’un savoir profane en France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé. Au XIXesiècle, alors que la pharmacopée s’enrichit d’un nombre considérable de psychotropes, la plupart ayant des propriétés antalgiques, l’automédication est la norme. Les individus de l’époque disposent en effet de connaissances traditionnelles sur les substances disponibles, actualisées pour les médicaments nouveaux grâce à de nombreux contenus de vulgarisation médicale. Les médecins et pharmaciens participent à cet accroissement de la médicalisation qui favorise leur installation en tant que professionnels reconnus. Mais à mesure que leur statut s’institutionnalise, le corps médical officiel œuvre à interdire toute pratique de soins en dehors de son contrôle, qu’il s’agisse du recours aux thérapeutes traditionnels (guérisseuses et guérisseurs, rebouteuses·et rebouteux, herboristes, etc.) ou de l’automédication. Nous analyserons dans cet article les pratiques médicales des individus du XIXesiècle en lien avec les psychotropes et montrerons les conséquences sanitaires de la confiscation des savoirs profanes sur ces substances.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".