Preliminary Initiatives in a Bridge Building Project between Conventional and Alternative Practitioners in Denmark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing number of the approximately 7,400 persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) in Denmark use alternative treatments. The Danish Multiple Sclerosis Society has been experiencing an increasing demand for research on the effects of combined conventional and alternative treatments. For this reason, the Society has initiated a bridge building project to be implemented from 2004-2011 at a specialized MS hospital. In that project, a team of five conventional and five alternative practitioners works together and offers integrative treatments to a total of 400 MS patients. OBJECTIVE: The overall purpose of the project is to examine if integrative treatments may optimize treatment results for people suffering from MS, and to develop a model for a bridge building cooperation of conventional and alternative practitioners in the future. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this article we give an overview of the steps taken before establishing the hospital- based team of practitioners: (1) a public hearing attended by conventional and alternative practitioners experienced in treating MS patients; (2) qualitative interviews among conventional practitioners at a specialized MS hospital; (3) a literature study on the use and effects of alternative treatments and integrative treatments related to MS. RESULTS: The knowledge gained in the preliminary steps of the project showed that we had to add a preparatory phase to the project focusing on the development of the team before it would start treating MS patients.
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 | 0.026 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".