Chaos in Western Medicine: How Issues of Social-Professional Status are Undermining Our Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the period immediately following the second world war, western (orthodox) medicine - both as a philosophy of medicine and as a professional guild of medical professionals actively practicing medicine - has made progress in leaps and bounds, especially considering the advances in technology and associated enterprises. Over the last thirty years, however, the practice of orthodox medicine has taken a turn for the worst despite progressive philosophies and tenets of basic practice as offered by the professional bodies that regulate how medicine is operated and implemented. Current healthcare environments are in a chaotic state of affairs, most notably due to issues involving affordability of medical professionals. It is argued that the social-professional status of medical doctors allow exorbitant and unreachable demands on governments for increased salaries. The title-based supremacy of doctors within the occupations domain is not supported by what they are offering society at large, and it compromises the ability of medical institutions and governments to provide better and more affordable healthcare. From a sociological point of view, this paper examines the social-religious history of such social class-based occupational power and dominance, and paves the way toward an overhaul of current medical education frameworks that proactively will ensure greater occupational equity in healthcare settings, across all healthcare disciplines tasked with patient care and improvement of healthcare services. In essence, doctoral titles should only be awarded after successful completion of postgraduate doctoral studies, and a new breed of medical professionals must emerge, able to contribute more meaningfully to the advancement of medicine as a profession, as well as toward increased standards of healthcare and improved health services delivery.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.087 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".