Discipline, desire, and transgression in physiotherapy practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Therapeutic touch has played an important part in human civilization and continues to contribute to our social relations and individual identities. Therapeutic touch has been a vital component in the development and definition of physiotherapy practice and continues to be one of the profession's principal distinguishing competencies. It is surprising then that while so much has been written about how to perform therapeutic touch techniques, little has been written about the role that these techniques have played in defining physiotherapy's professional identity. Drawing on the work of three postmodern philosophers, we offer a critique of physio-therapeutic approaches to therapeutic touch, examining why certain modes of touch were adopted by the profession in the past and not others; how the innate sensuality of touch had to be managed; and how the disciplinary technologies that surrounded the practice of massage came to define physiotherapy's professional identity. Our thesis is that the disciplinary technologies adopted by the profession in the 1890s endure today and that the profession's heavily disciplined approach to touch is now constraining new therapeutic possibilities that may be necessary if the profession is to respond to the demands of twenty-first century health care.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it