Imagination and idealism after the COVID-19 pandemic: the science of healthy ageing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 5 May 2023, the World Health Organization declared that COVID-19 no longer constituted a public health emergency of international concern. Medical science must now consider how it ought to recalibrate its imagination and idealism in a post-COVID-19 pandemic world. The fact that advanced age was the largest risk factor for COVID-19 mortality and serious illness, as well as for the most prevalent chronic diseases, reveals the urgency and significance of shifting the focus from mitigating each specific pathology risk, one at a time, to targeting biological ageing itself. In his 1910 JAMA Address entitled ‘Imagination and Idealism in the Medical Sciences', Christian Herter made an important distinction between two ways imagination and idealism can be invoked in the medical sciences: (i) humanitarian medicine, which emphasizes the obvious and direct paths of ameliorating human suffering; and (ii) a curiosity-oriented approach which explores pure science and the experimental laboratory. The latter examines the indirect ways of winning, in Herter's words, ‘the citadel’ of health promotion. Herter's reflections on these two contrasting approaches to medicine have significance for both the COVID-19 pandemic and the aspiration to promote the ideal of healthy ageing in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era.
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".