Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The banner of patient-centredness flies over many academic institutions; however, the practice and teaching of medicine remain oriented to disease. This incongruence is the result of an original Flexnerian dichotomy between the basic and clinical sciences and is maintained by a more recent distinction between disease and illness. One mind-set emphasises basic science and pathology pedagogically, whilst clinical medicine becomes a search for disease. The second introduces the patient as the focal point, underlining the personal and social contexts of illness. RESPONSE AT A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL: We must orient ourselves to a single central theme, namely, the well-being of the individual patient. Doing so does not deny the importance of the scientific understanding of biological function. Indeed, recent advances in genetics may permit a richer view of the individual as a unique product of genetic, developmental and experiential forces. The foregoing provide a coherent framework for a scientifically guided and humanistic medicine, which replaces the false dichotomies that have plagued medical school curricula with a congruent and stereoscopic view of medical education. RESPONSE AT A CURRICULAR LEVEL: We describe an undergraduate programme, entitled 'Physicianship', based on the fundamental premise that healing is the doctor's primary obligation. Explicit training in a specific clinical method, whose cardinal features include observation, attentive listening and clinical reasoning, emphasises the knowledge and skills necessary to effect this theoretical framework. The understanding of illnesses emphasises loss of homeostasis, whereas the physical examination highlights impairments of function. The educational experience is enriched with numerous opportunities for self-reflection.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.105 | 0.024 |
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".