Regulating Alternative Medicines: Disorder in the Borderlands
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
In many Western countries, the use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) has been growing. Individuals in Western countries often use CAMs in conjunction with biomedicine (also referred to as allopathic or Western medicine), or sometimes choose to rely on CAMs as alternatives to biomedicine. In most contemporary Western societies, biomedicine is relatively strictly regulated, while regulation of CAMs reflects a much less settled regulatory landscape. With use of CAMs increasing and concerns about standards, an approach to regulating certain popular forms of CAMs is needed. The central regulatory challenge is how to provide for patients’ autonomy over their own treatment while addressing the core challenges of severe information asymmetries and negative externalities. Regulation of CAMs should be calibrated to the degree of risk entailed, especially where CAMs are promoted as substitutes for, rather than as complements to, biomedicine in treating potentially lifethreatening health conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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