The Search for International Consensus on Auricular Acupuncture Nomenclature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization (WHO) has held multiple international meetings to establish a standardized nomenclature for body acupuncture, but a global consensus for auricular acupuncture nomenclature has not yet been fully accepted. An international symposium on auriculotherapy that will meet in Singapore in 2017 will strive to finalize a standardized auricular nomenclature. A series of meetings sponsored by the WHO led to a standard nomenclature for body acupuncture points. This system consisted of an alphanumeric code, the Pinyin Chinese phonetic name, and the Han character for each acupuncture point, and the English translation of the Chinese names for acupuncture meridians. A two-letter rather than a one-letter abbreviation was adopted for each meridian. A 1990 international meeting held in Lyon, France, also sponsored by the WHO, was not able to arrive at a collective consensus regarding differences in the ear acupuncture maps used by acupuncturists from Asia in contrast to the somatotopic system developed by European doctors. The importance of facilitating an international nomenclature standard for the purposes of research, teaching, and clinical findings for the field of auriculotherapy remains a high priority.
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 | 0.143 | 0.170 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".