Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Reflection on 35 years in family medical practice - from home births to home deaths. My own wider understanding of "medical practise" through my personal growth.THE GAPS1) ISAAC NEWTON vs ALBERT EINSTEINMatter versus energy. Current medical practise is still largely perceived through a Newtonian mindset. In recent years the "repair shop" mentality has intensified as we find more sophisticated techniques for managing the ailing human body. We still practise in a reductive world where we believe that we can determine outcomes entirely by understanding the parts. Even a scant understanding of wave particle interactivity can help interpret a more holistic view of disease processes. Metastatic cancer is an enormous challenge and I believe outcomes are related to far more than the conventional invasive treatments.2) LOUIS PASTEUR vs CLAUDE BERNARDGerm theory versus milleu. The debate these two men initiated 170 years ago continues today - even though it is rumoured on his deathbed Louis was heard to say he thought Claude was right. We still practise medicine as if we are fighting an enemy and give scant regard to the milleu that we allow the "enemy" to inhabit. As the mystics and the scientists draw closer together through our quantum understanding, the milleu of our human system appears more complex and more connected to the world that we inhabit.Although I practise conventional family medicine, I use metaphysics, metaphor and an interpretation of energy medicine to help patients understand their disease and enable them to use an holistic approach to intergrate both conventional and complimentary therapies. With increasing audit and protocol driven practise it seems that often humanity gets sidelined. HbA1c's become more important than the relationship the patient has with their disease.Conclusion: The reintegration of humanity into the practise of medicine will help empower patients with insight that will not only enhance their quality of life but will also help save millions of dollars that currently is wasted within the victim / fix it model of medicine. I see the tide turning and this conference is evidence of a resurgence in a broader understanding of medicine through personhood.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.008 |
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".