Bibliographic record
Abstract
The publication of ‘General Practice in England Today — a Reconnaissance’ in the Lancet of 25 March 1950 made its Australian author, Dr Joseph Silver Collings, the National Health Scheme’s first whistleblower.1 It also ruined any chance of an academic or administrative career in the UK. Its unflattering description of English general practice angered the medical profession, particularly the British Medical Association (BMA). The Nuffield Provincial Hospital Trust who had funded it were not prepared to have their name associated with it. The Ministry of Health and the Chief Medical Officer who had directed the research underlying it remained silent. Joe Collings, as he preferred to be called, conducted the first evaluative research on general practice published in the English world.2 Challenging the smugness of British medicine, Collings was denied due recognition with his approach labelled unorthodox, and his sampling of English general practice considered fatally skewed. Joe was portrayed as a brash, inexperienced Australian influenced by American concepts with limited experience of British medicine. All those with direct knowledge of those times are now dead, so we must rely on records to ascertain what happened. Joe was a meticulous archivist and his wife Bett preserved his papers in the National Library of Australia.3 Extensive Rockefeller Foundation archive documents add to our knowledge of his activities.4 Joe had experienced general practice in two pioneering universal healthcare insurance systems, New Zealand and Manitoba, Canada, where the reformers sought his opinions. The Rockefeller Foundation funded him for 3 months in 1948 to explore medical educational developments in …
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".