The Disruptive Consequences of Discourse Fragmentation in the Organization and Delivery of Health Care: A Look Into Diabetes
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 aim of this study is to contribute to a better understanding about how discourse fragmentation is affecting the way doctors perceive the patient's role and expectations that are being redefined under the influence of media and other information sources. The diabetes case provides the empirical evidence to support the fragmentation thesis. This condition offers a unique mix of complexity, scope, and controversy to understand the dialectics of discourse fragmentation. Through a combined analysis of media discourse and experts' discourse (researchers and clinicians), this article describes the connections between the macro (the realm of the public sphere) and the micro (the localized medical practice) in the context of health care delivery. The study concludes that a fragmented media discourse tends at the same time to nourish the public perception about the "diabetes complexities" (a multifaceted and growing epidemic), and to normalize some emerging concepts such as "prediabetes" and metabolic syndrome. This fragmentation seems to have a double-edged sword effect on doctor-patient relationships; in some occasions the atomized discourse about diabetes has a clear disruptive impact on their medical practice, adding an "extra burden" to the disease management, while in other opportunities it has a more convergent effect facilitating the dialogue and the interaction between the actors.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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