MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W855384093

Health, Illness, and Disease: Philosophical Essays

2014· article· en· W855384093 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Howard A. Doughty

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œinnovation journal · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueMental Health and Psychiatry
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPresumptionHealth careGovernment (linguistics)HarmPublic relationsMedicineLawBusinessSociologyPolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Havi Carel & Rachel Valerie Cooper, eds. Health, Illness, and Disease: Philosophical Essays Durham, UK: Acumen Publishing, 2013Reviewed by: Howard A. DoughtyFew fields of social and technological activity are immune to change. Indeed, the extent and pace of change are the criteria according to which many human enterprises are judged. So, computer designers, software manufacturers, automobile makers, pharmaceutical laboratories, military ordnance developers, biomedical researchers, agricultural gene manipulators and educational authorities bang their respective drums loudly in keeping with the call to offer innovative new products and services to a public eager to be seduced by the very next new big thing.First, do no harm. - HippocratesOpinions differ as to whether the quality of life is substantially improved by the latest iteration of the mobile phone or the newest genetically modified food product, but it is plain that the commercial market and government sourcing agencies impatiently await whatever is deemed to be a cutting-edge technology or ground-breaking methodology-even if the promised improvements are unproven or the costs of the assured benefits are unknown. Generally speaking, the trend seems to be toward giving well-hyped novelties the presumption of credibility and, in some cases, that presumption is rewarded with immensely salutary results.One field in which change has won widespread and well-deserved approval is medicine and health care. As a three-time cancer survivor who would have not lived long enough to be rescued from impending death by robotic surgery had it not been for modern diagnoses, interventions and treatments for a ruptured appendix at age 16 and a subdural hematoma at age 55,1 count myself among the people who are looking forward to at least a fragile sort of survival into my eighties and nineties thanks only to the diagnostic and therapeutic developments that have taken place in the last century or two.What's more, not only have we learned how to deal better with trauma and to conduct radical interventions with some success, but we have also made extraordinary advances in areas such as public health. Initiatives in illness prevention, early intervention, nutrition and hygiene currently compete with antibiotics and other medicines for the claim to have saved more lives, added more years to people's lives and made the quality of life for survivors immeasurably better. From the clever people who figured out that it would be a good idea for surgeons to wash their hands before removing bullets from wounded soldiers' abdomens to those who invented fMRI machines and devices in the slightly scary-sounding domain of nuclear medicine, it seems to me that, broadly speaking, medical progress has been an irrefutable human good to be questioned, if at all, only in terms of its contribution to ecologically hazardous levels of human population and the prospect of irredeemable environmental degradation owing to the Malthusian implications of our collective success in delaying death.Dr. Frankenstein is now a role model and we are more or less his monsters.Considering the enormous achievements and implications of modern medical miracles, it is somewhat disconcerting to realize just how recent health care advancements actually are. It is true that physicians have been around for a lot longer than particle physicists, biochemists and macroeconomists. It is also true that they have been worrying some about the morals of their vocation ever since Hippocrates set out their foundational ethical principle: first, do no harm.Still, shortly after the Founders of the American republic had cobbled together their nation's (mostly) commendable Bill of Rights, their recently retired chief magistrate, George Washington, perished from a throat infection (epiglottitis) complicated by his physicians who bled him four times (removing 32 ounces at his last bleeding), a process that is said to have caused the hypovolemic shock that ultimately killed him (Grizzard, 2002: 105-107). …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,831
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,033
Tête enseignante GPT0,279
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œinnovation journalMême sujetMental Health and PsychiatryTravaux en français237 207