Diagnosing at Point of Care in South India
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
Point-of-care testing promises to cut diagnostic and treatment delays by ensuring patients receive a management decision based on a diagnostic test within one encounter with a provider. Adding to STS work on diagnostics and the sociology of diagnosis, this paper examines the work involved in enacting point-of-care testing, how technology features and the embedded assumptions regarding patients. Using focus group discussions with providers and patients in India, the results reveal overlaps, detours and frictions along diagnostic pathways. Diagnosing at point of care requires coordination work by providers and patients and alignment of diagnostic ensembles in which bodies, tools, knowledge, infrastructure, social relations and testing sites mutually configure each other. Patients do not always leave the point of care with one disease or diagnosis. In the process, they are both turned into objects as well as powerful actors. Contributions to STS theory and implications for global health innovation practices are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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