“Holistic” Care for Stroke in the Context of the Current Health Care Bureaucracy and Economic Reality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The target paper by Sharon Kaufman argues that modern Western health care delivery is characterized by "the coexistence of two conflicting conceptual frameworks," namely a "holistic" approach that attempts to take into account the cultural and personal needs of the individual stroke patient and "medicalization" that attempts to reduce people and their illnesses to biological processes which can then be treated through "evidence-based" biomedical approaches. Although it is true that these 2 approaches often coexist and are sometimes in conflict, it would be misleading to see these as totally dichotomous. Patients want holistic approaches less than we give them credit for, and physicians are less mechanical than such a dichotomy would suggest. In fact, more often than not, patients and their health care providers combine to engender unrealistic expectations about what modern medicine is actually able to accomplish. When the system breaks down, as it often does in stroke (with a patient who is still left with a significant impairment an disability as well as unresolved concerns and issues related to his or her often catastrophic loss of function), there is a certain inevitable backlash. However, this tension between holistic expectations and the medical response is overshadowed by institutional constraints on clinical decision making that are designed to manage or balance expectations of both patients and health care professionals with economic realities and, in doing so, often run rough-shod over the "holistic" needs of patients and their families as well as health care providers' attempts to manage disease and disability within a medical framework.
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 | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".