The transition of general practice into an academic discipline: tracing the origins through the first four professors in general practice/family medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Being the 'mother' of most clinical specialties, general practice is as old as medicine itself. However, as a recognized academic discipline within medical schools, general practice has a relatively short life span. A decisive step forward was taken in 1956 when the University of Edinburgh established its Department of General Practice, and appointed the world's inaugural professor in the field in 1963. During the 1960s, the pioneering move in Edinburgh was followed by universities in the Netherlands (University of Utrecht), Canada (Western University, Ontario), and Norway (University of Oslo), marking the beginning of global academic recognition for general practice/family medicine. Despite its critical role in healthcare, the academic evolution of general practice has been sparingly documented, with a notable absence of comprehensive accounts detailing its integration into medical schools as an independent discipline with university departments and academic professors. Last year (2023) marked the 60th anniversary of Dr. Richard Scott's historic appointment as the first professor of General Practice/Family Medicine. Through the lens of the first four professors appointed between 1963 and 1969, we explore the 'birth' of general practice to become an academic discipline. In most western countries of today, general practice has become a recognized medical discipline and an important part of the medical education. But many places, this development is lagging behind. The global shaping of general practice into an academic discipline is therefore definitively not completed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".