What Matters: The Lived Experience with Musculoskeletal Health Conditions: Figure 1.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
> “Non enim vivere bonum est sed bene vivere” [What is good is not just living, but living well...] > > — Seneca, Epistulae Morales Today, living and living well are the 2 main health-related social goals. Social progress and modern medicine have made it possible for more and more people in developed societies to enjoy a lifespan approaching the biological limit of human nature. The true challenge, then, is how people can live well over the whole lifespan, especially when experiencing health impairments. Rheumatology is a case in point with respect to the success of modern medicine to achieve this. With the development of biological treatments and the evolution of the evaluation sciences and clinical quality management, patients with adverse musculoskeletal health conditions now have a better chance than ever to live a full life comparable to people without any health problems. The continuous development of even better interventions and the systematic evaluation of their benefits and harms rely on a shared and valid conceptualization of health. Unfortunately, Jadad and O’Grady have pessimistically concluded in a recent British Medical Journal editorial that “to define health is futile”1. We believe the main reason for this is that the philosophical conceptualization of health from a purely biological perspective does not provide an adequate definition of health2. Ultimately, the lack of a universally agreed on and practical conceptualization of health has contributed to a Tower of Babel in the world of outcome measurement. Fortunately, there is a solution on the horizon. The key is to forego the futile claim to a universally agreed-on definition of health and instead focus on a universally agreed-on operationalization … Address correspondence to Prof. Stucki; E-mail: Gerold.stucki{at}paranet.ch
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".