MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130794330 · doi:10.1177/1534735406295293

Models for the Study of Whole Systems

2006· article· en· W2130794330 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative Cancer Therapies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcosystem dynamics and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthLotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation
KeywordsBiomedicineComplex systemReductionismContext (archaeology)Systems scienceIntegrative medicineSystems medicineComputer scienceData scienceSystems biologyManagement scienceHomeopathyArtificial intelligenceMedicineEpistemologyAlternative medicineBioinformaticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article summarizes a network and complex systems science model for research on whole systems of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) such as homeopathy and traditional Chinese medicine. The holistic concepts of networks and nonlinear dynamical complex systems are well matched to the global and interactive perspectives of whole systems of CAM, whereas the reductionistic science model is well matched to the isolated local organ, cell, and molecular mechanistic perspectives of pharmaceutically based biomedicine. Whole systems of CAM are not drugs with specific actions. The diagnostic and therapeutic approaches of whole systems of CAM produce effects that involve global and patterned shifts across multiple subsystems of the person as a whole. For homeopathy, several characteristics of complex systems, including the probabilistic nature of attractor patterns, variable sensitivity of complex systems to initial conditions, and emergent behaviors in the evolution of a system in its full environmental context over time, could help account for the mixed basic science and controlled clinical trial research findings, in contrast with the consistently positive outcomes of observational studies in the literature. Application of theories and methods from complex systems and network science can open a new era of advances in understanding factors that lead to good versus poor individual global outcome patterns and to rational triage of patients to one type of care over another. The growing reliance on complex systems thinking and systems biology for cancer research affords a unique opportunity to bridge between the CAM and conventional medical worlds with some common language and conceptual models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it