MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329352032 · doi:10.3399/bjgp16x684625

Books: <i>Family Medicine. The Medical Life History of Families</i>

2016· article· en· W2329352032 on OpenAlexaff
Domhnall MacAuley

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of General Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedicine and Dermatology Studies History
Canadian institutionsCanadian Medical Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhoneFamily medicineMedical prescriptionMedicineFamily historyFamily doctorsNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WEAVING THROUGH GENERATIONSMy parents' surgery was in an extension of our home.As children, we answered the phone, gave out prescriptions at the front door when the surgery was closed, and often helped with filing letters or doing other paperwork during school holidays.Growing up, we came to know the patients of the practice and saw how health and sickness weaved through generations.So, when I first read Family Medicine: The Medical Life History of Families by Frans Huygen, I almost recognised these patients, though from a different country and a very different culture.Describing his patients in a way that we probably could not do now, he shared their personal lives, the family dynamics, how illness repeated in mothers and daughters, the impact of caring for patients at home, and the relationships that are so much a part of family medicine.However, it was his charts and diagrams recording sickness through families that were groundbreaking in a time long before electronic records; his deep understanding of psychological pathology predated our insights into depression; and his drawings illustrating the book, and a further sketchbook Herinneringen aan Lent, capture the burden of illness more acutely than any textbook.Frans was the grandfather of scholarly general practice in the Netherlands who

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1580.065

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of General PracticeSame topicMedicine and Dermatology Studies HistoryFrench-language works237,207