Nandini Bhattacharya, <i>Disparate Remedies: Making Medicines in Modern India</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complex interplay between the intellectual traditions and knowledge hierarchies of indigenous and western medicine in colonial India is already well-rehearsed, wide-ranging and nuanced. However Nandini Bhattacharya brings a number of new insights that centre not around cultures of science and medicine but focus instead on the changing role of drugs and medicines in the marketplace. Bhattacharya investigates how medicines were produced, distributed and marketed in India and the central role of consumer choice. She traces the long history of ‘medical pluralism’ from the nineteenth century, showing the pragmatism of modern, urban Indian consumers and the impact of everyday encounters in the medical marketplace in fostering dialogue between medical epistemologies. Most significantly, she demonstrates that the medical market in India was driven by small-scale consumers who were more interested in the price and efficacy of medicine than allegiance to a political, scientific or intellectual tradition or classification and whose primary concern was their own health and the health of their families, workers and dependents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.035 |
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".