A spatial-temporal study of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by type: exploring localization economies implications in urban areas in Ontario
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
OBJECTIVES: This study adds to the geography of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) literature by comparing the spatial-temporal patterns of five types of CAM within 19 cities in light of clustering benefits from localization economies. METHODS: CAM office location points and nearest neighbour, standard distance, local spatial autocorrelation, and Mann-Whitney analyses are utilized to test potential clustering tendencies of CAM types over time. RESULTS: It is shown that 'within' (chiropractors near chiropractors, for example) and 'amongst' (chiropractors proximate to other CAM types) spatial clustering occurs in 2007 and 2017. This implies the persistent influence of localization economies. CONCLUSIONS: Continued clustering of CAM within urban locations already replete with CAM offices will widen spatial disparities through time. This has implications for policy-makers concerned with dispersing medical resources over space for better accessibility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it