Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: For many practitioners and patients, the most critical aspect of medical practice is healing. Healing requires compassion in order to elevate clinical practices above the skills of a medical technician. At the same time, the act of healing is deeply involved. When practitioners heal, they must take care not to experience physical, mental, or spiritual fatigue or injury to themselves. By practicing healing as recycling energy from negative to positive, practitioners develop contemplative compassion. The more practitioners treat patients, the more they understand how to recycle and heal, and the better the practitioner they become.Methods: Healing recycling involves practitioners engaging their own chakra system on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels. Negative energy is drawn from the patient and flows through the practitioner to their solar plexus, where it is converted to positive energy. The practitioner then returns the positive energy to the patient as a vital healing force. In order to avoid injury through this process, practitioners must purify and harmonize themselves through practice and discipline in body, mind, and spirit exercises.Results: Traditional Chinese Medical philosophy will be introduced and used to examine the concepts of energy, healing, discipline, and holistic medicine. The various modalities of healing recycling will be demonstrated, including through the hand, the eye, the nose, and the third eye. By practicing healing recycling, practitioners will avoid becoming “wounded healers”, and improve their overall ability to heal.Conclusions: Practitioners who can contemplate compassion in their medical practice become healers. Without compassion, there is no healing. Without healing, there is no medicine. Therefore, the practice of medicine needs a better understanding of how to recycle energy. At the same time, greater healing will translate into improved quality of life for 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".