La fabrique de la controverse : André Vésale (1514–1564) à la conquête des publics (ou Comment acquérir un nom immortel dans l’histoire des sciences en insultant ses maîtres)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lorsqu’en 1543 André Vésale fait paraître les Sept Livres de la Fabrique du corps humain, il fait, complaisamment, scandale dans le monde de la médecine et, plus largement, dans la sphère des lecteurs cultivés européens. Prenant à vingt-huit ans une parole d’autorité en médecine, il développe son exposé sur la dissection comme une série d’observations personnelles et d’invectives contre les mauvais anatomistes, à commencer par ses maîtres. Or, non seulement cette irrévérence est publique, mais encore elle crée un public représenté en frontispice de l’ouvrage : elle instaure dans le livre un tribunal pour la science. La première victime du procédé est Jacques Dubois, professeur à la Faculté de médecine de Paris : sa réponse, publiée en 1551, nourrit un débat posthume, en plusieurs sessions, nourrissant la controverse sur laquelle se bâtit la postérité de Vésale.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".