Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Stephen M Perle, DC, MS* Eisenberg et al.1 have shown what I believe to be their bias in their paper detailing the credentialing of complementary and alternative medical providers (CAM). Eisenberg and colleagues (3 of whom are MDs) deal with this topic in a way that I believe is consistent with their status as the majority health care providers. The biases or arrogance with which the majority deals with a minority is often completely transparent to the members of the majority. Even if they are trying to be dispassionate and unbiased, the bias can be glaring to the minority. The most blatant bias in Eisenberg’s1 paper would probably be obvious to any of the regular readers of this journal. It is easy to say that it is an issue that I would have been aware of given my past residence in Canada and my research collaboration with two Canadians.2,3 But suffice it to say that at the least my awareness of Eisenberg’s bias is heightened by whom I am writing this commentary for, a Canadian chiropractic journal. It must be apparent now that the bias I am referring to is that their paper covers credentialing of CAM providers in the United States only, but does not say this anywhere in the abstract or paper. I suppose one could assume that it is a given that the paper is about the credentialing of CAM providers in the States because it appears in the official journal of the American College of Physicians and American Society of Internal Medicine. However a Medline search of Annals of Internal Medicine showed that of 18864 articles, 134 are by Canadians or about Canada is some way. So this journal while rarely publishing papers by or about Canadians does do so rarely. In the first paragraph Eisenberg et al.’s bias or should I said their medical superiority complex shines through clearly. They say, “Legislative recognition trumps medical recognition: State legislature can license providers and thereby grant citizens access to certain therapies, even if scientific debate has not concluded in favor of those modalities.” To me this is the most troubling statement in the whole paper for the implication here is two fold: Having biases seems to be a fundamental human trait. We have biases about almost everything. It is a constant battle to try to control our biases. In science one often goes to extreme measures to remove the bias of subjects and researchers. This is done with blinding and control. The purpose of the experimental design is to as effectively as possible remove bias from the study. In some studies one cannot systematically avoid bias but one must be aware of the possibility of bias affecting a study or one’s writing and be vigilant for its appearance.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».