Structural constraints and opportunities for CAM use and referral by physicians, nurses, and midwives
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
This article examines the attitudes and reported behaviors of physicians, nurses, and midwives regarding complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), with respect to one key theme that emerged from a broader qualitative study. Of central interest are the structural influences identified by study participants that either act as constraints or opportunities for their professional use of or referral for CAM. In an effort to interpret these results, the analysis is situated within the sociology literature that documents the influences of professional socialization, practice philosophy, regulation, and organizations on professional behavior. These influences are classified as either professional-level structures or work/organizational structures. The main conclusion is that future research should pay more attention to such structural dimensions that may be exerting influence on the decisions of providers about whether or not to professionally use or refer for CAM. This article is offered as a conceptual starting point for doing so.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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