Un médicament « monstrueux » : débats publics et couverture médiatique de la tragédie de la thalidomide au Canada, 1961–1963
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’attarde au drame de la thalidomide qui a frappé le Canada en 1962. S’appuyant sur divers documents d’archives, y compris des lettres envoyées au ministre fédéral de la Santé par des citoyens et citoyennes, et sur la couverture de la tragédie par les médias, il cherche principalement à analyser les débats que la naissance des bébés phocomèles ont provoqués afin de mieux cerner la conception que les sociétés canadienne et québécoise se faisaient des personnes handicapées au début des années 1960. Inspirée de la grille de classification développée par la philosophe française Marie-Claire Cagnolo au sujet des « logiques » qui ont présidé au traitement de ces personnes à travers l’histoire, l’étude conclut qu’une « logique séparatiste d’élimination » s’est alors clairement manifestée, en même temps qu’une « logique paternaliste de réparation » se faisait jour, mais sans que n’apparaisse une « logique sociétale d’intégration » qui aurait exigé de considérer le sort de tous les enfants handicapés, et pas seulement des bébés thalidomidiens, comme ce fut le cas. Abstract: This article focuses on the thalidomide tragedy that occurred in Canada in 1962. Through the study of various primary sources, including letters sent by citizens to the federal Minister of Health and newspaper coverage of the tragedy, we provide an analysis of the public debates provoked by babies born with phocomelia in order to better assess the conception Quebec and Canadian societies had of disabled persons at the beginning of the 1960s. Inspired by the French philosopher Marie-Claire Cagnolo’s classification scheme of the “logics” that characterized the treatment of disabled persons through history, the study concludes that a “separatist logic of elimination” clearly arose, while a “paternalistic logic of reparation” also began to appear. A “societal logic of integration”, however, did not emerge, as concern was limited to the fate of thalidomide babies, rather than that of all disabled children.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".