Connectivity: An emerging concept for physiotherapy practice
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Having spent their first century anchored to a biomedical model of practice, physiotherapists have been increasingly interested in exploring new models and concepts that will better equip them for serving the health-care needs of 21st century clients/patients. Connectivity offers one such model. With an extensive philosophical background in phenomenology, symbolic interactionism, structuralism, and postmodern research, connectivity resists the prevailing western biomedical view that health professionals should aim to increase people's independence and autonomy, preferring instead to identify and amplify opportunities for collaboration and co-dependence. Connectivity critiques the normalization that underpins modern health care, arguing that our constant search for deviance is building stigma and discrimination into our everyday practice. It offers provocative opportunities for physiotherapists to rethink some of the fundamental tenets of their profession and better align physiotherapy with 21st century societal expectations. In this paper, we provide a background to the place connectivity may play in future health care, and most especially future physiotherapy practice. The paper examines some of the philosophical antecedents that have made connectivity an increasingly interesting and challenging concept in health care today.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it