Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marjory Warren was one of the initial geriatricians in the United Kingdom. She established specialized geriatric units, held important administrative positions, and wrote influential papers where she argued for the need of the specialty of geriatric medicine and outlined principles for inpatient care of older adults with chronic illness. We compare and contrast Warren's early papers describing these principles with contemporary models for improving inpatient care of older adults and the need for the specialty of geriatrics. Warren's writings on the inpatient care of older adults presage the principles of both Hospital Elder Life Programs and Acute Care of the Elderly units. The importance of multidisciplinary teams, the physical environment, attention to diverse issues (medical, social, functional), early ambulation, and the active involvement of the older person in their daily routine are present in Warren's writings and in contemporary approaches. Warren's arguments for both the specialty of geriatric medicine and increased training of nonspecialist physicians and other health professionals are remarkably similar to those made in a recent Institute of Medicine report. Across time and place, there has been consistency in the general principles perceived as required for the effective cares of older persons, but challenges persist in implementing and sustaining them.
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 | 0.012 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".