Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods of verification of the efficacy and safety of health interventions must be congruent with the underlying health beliefs. It is therefore inappropriate to require scientific validation of health interventions that are not based on science. On the other hand, there is no justification for different standards of validation of health products from alternative sources that are used by the public in a manner similar to prescription and over-the-counter drugs. Public monies for health research should be focused on establishing the criteria for safety and efficacy of interventions based on alternative health belief systems, on understanding the "meaning" response and on clinical/epidemiologic research on a carefully selected small number of alternative interventions based on their "plausibility." Novel ways of surveillance of the safety of alternative therapies should be supported in place of the planned system modelled on the program for drugs.
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 | 0.032 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".