Toward a ‘green allopathy’? Naturopathic paradigm and practice in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epistemic tensions have long been evident within naturopathy, a heterodox healthcare occupation licensed across much of North America. Naturopaths less inclined toward bioscientific explanatory and evidentiary norms have long used the trope of the 'green allopath' to critique the practices of their more biomedically- (i.e., 'allopathically') inclined colleagues. Using the 'green allopathy' narrative as a conceptual starting point, this work uses a qualitatively-driven, mixed methods design involving interviews (n = 17) and a census-style survey (n = 366) to characterize the paradigmatic and practice patterns of licensed naturopaths in Ontario, Canada between 2017 and 2019. At odds with many interviewees' accounts, survey results suggest that the occupation's overall epistemic character, aligned with the concept of holism, has not changed much over the last two decades. Nevertheless, findings suggest notable changes in Ontario naturopaths' clinical practice patterns over the same period, including: more frequent use of botanical medicines, nutritional supplements and acupuncture; less frequent use of physical medicine (e.g., massage, hydrotherapy); and, an overall reduction in homeopathic usage. Controlling for other factors, older naturopaths are more likely to rely often on non-biomedical diagnostic modes (p = 0.042), suggesting an emerging shift, in practice, toward a 'green allopathy'. Naturopaths' widespread ongoing engagement with therapeutic modalities whose epistemic premises diverge strongly from conventional biomedicine (e.g., homeopathy, East Asian medicine), appears mediated by the increasing body of related bioscientific evidence, and by gender and age (p-values <0.05). Gender and age also significantly predict naturopaths' alignment with more pharmaceutically-oriented care (p values < 0.05). Though naturopathy's 'green allopathization' appears underway, the demographic predominance of women within the profession may temper this trend in the years ahead.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".