Historical thinking in clinical medicine: lessons from<scp>R</scp>.<scp>G</scp>.<scp>C</scp>ollingwood's philosophy of history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article is to create a space for historical thinking in medical practice. To this end, we draw on the ideas of R.G. Collingwood (1889-1943), the renowned British philosopher of history, and explore the implications of his philosophy for clinical medicine. We show how Collingwood's philosophy provides a compelling argument for the re-centring of medical practice around the patient history as a means of restoring to the clinical encounter the human meaning that is too often lost in modern medicine. Furthermore, we examine how Collingwood's historical thinking offers a patient-centred epistemology and a more pluralistic concept of evidence that includes the qualitative, narrative evidence necessary for human understanding. We suggest that clinical medicine can benefit from Collingwood's historical thinking, and, more generally, illustrates how a philosophy of medicine that draws on diverse sources from the humanities offers a richer, more empathetic clinical practice.
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 | 0.021 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".