Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, and strain upon the start: enfranchising the medical profession for clinically proximate advocacy of improved healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To discuss and reflect upon the role of medical practitioners, including psychiatrists, as health advocates on behalf of patients, carers and staff. CONCLUSIONS: Health advocacy is a key professional competency of medical practitioners, and is part of the RANZCP framework for training and continuing professional development. Since advocacy is often a team activity, there is much that is gained experientially from volunteering and working with other more experienced health advocates within structurally and financially independent (of health systems and governments) representative groups (RANZCP, AMA, unions). Doctors may begin with clinically proximate advocacy for improved healthcare in health systems, across the public and private sectors. Health advocacy requires skill and courage, but can ultimately influence systemic outcomes, sway policy decisions, and improve resource allocation.
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 | 0.036 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".