Measurement Reliability for Acupoint Activity Determined with the Prognos Ohmmeter
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
The concepts of meridians and acupoints are critical to traditional Chinese medicine but are met with skepticism in Western medicine. Empirical validation of these concepts is in its beginning stages and still hampered by problems with measurement. A promising avenue and foundation for validity testing is the demonstration that acupoint activity can be reliably measured via determination of electrical resistance at well-defined body surface points. In this article, efforts are described to maximize measurement reliability; we tested a variety of protocols to determine which method of data aggregation is associated with maximal reliability. Twenty-one healthy individuals were subjected to 5 repeated measurement cycles to test the predicted increase in reliability with increasing number of aggregated measurements. Reliability, defined as internal consistency, was indeed highest for 5 measurements (mean alpha = .88). Even the aggregate of only three measures was quite reliable (alpha = .84). Reliability for measuring acupoints on the left side of the body was roughly .05 higher than on the right side. Consistent with previous literature, we conclude that with repeated measures the reliability of electrical resistance measurements at acupoints is high and that a strong foundation for validation research is now laid.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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