Bibliographic record
Abstract
In classical antiquity there were no restrictions on who could practise medicine. There were no enforceable professional standards. The physician sold his services at his own discretion to those who asked and paid for treatment; he exercised his art as he wished. In the early Christian centuries Christian charity and moral principles effected some significant changes in the perception of medical ethics and suggested a responsibility to exercise compassion and extend charity. Yet it is not until the late Middle Ages that we can speak of the development of a clearly-defined medical deontology and professional ethics resulting from two factors» 1) The development of licensure requirements (whether imposed by external authority or obtained by medical guilds) which reflects a fundamental change in the very basis for the practice of medicine from a right to a privilege, with specific obligations attached to that privilege. 2) The clear definition and expression by casuists of the moral responsibilities of physicians. During the late Middle Ages some physicians wrote treatises on medical etiquette and ethics. When the contents of these treatises are supplemented by guild and university ethics and the moral expectations of the casuists, as well as by the evidence of physicians' conscientious response to the various outbreaks of pestilential disease in the late Middle Ages, the picture that emerges is of relatively high ethical standards circumscribed by, and in part the result of, clearly-delineated expectations of ecclesiastical authority and the secular community.
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 | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".