From Roots to Research: A Research Strategy for the Naturopathic Profession in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Naturopathy is a traditional medicine system originating in Europe and is practiced in 108 countries worldwide, representing the most geographically diverse traditional medicine in the modern era. However, the European roots of the naturopathic profession are still prevalent, with just over half of the international population of naturopathic practitioners in European countries. Despite the history and size of the naturopathic profession in Europe, only 8.8% of the more than 2000 peerreviewed research publications produced by naturopathic researchers in the last 30 years are based on studies conducted by researchers in Europe. In 2019, representatives from the World Naturopathic Federation (WNF) European Regional Group met in Lyon, France, to develop a strategy for naturopathy research in Europe. Attendees represented naturopathic organizations in France, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, and the Czech Republic. The outcome was a co-designed strategy based on shared ideas and goals, linked to implementation activities. The goals for the first four years were: (1) Establish research capacity through research training and infrastructure; (2) Strengthen research training and infrastructure; (3) Secure continued research capacity through formalized research training in naturopathic courses; (4) Establish research-sustainability through university-level naturopathic education. While the COVD-19 pandemic has delayed the timeline of initiating this strategy, the priorities, goals, and planned activities remain the same for the WNF European Regional Group. The strategy not only reflects a vision for the future of the profession in Europe, it also reflects an acknowledgement that the European naturopathic community is not only the custodian of the historical roots of the global naturopathic profession but also has an important role to play in its future.
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 | 0.304 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.050 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.055 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".