Stand van zaken van de homeopathie in België
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 CONTEXT 2 -- 2 DOELSTELLINGEN 2 -- 3 BEPERKINGEN 3 -- 4 HOMEOPATHIE IN BELGIË: DE GEBRUIKERS, DE BEOEFENAARS, DE -- METHODEN 4 -- 4.1 TOENEMEND BEROEP OP NIET-CONVENTIONELE GENEESWIJZEN 4 -- 4.2 WIE ZIJN DE PATIËNTEN? 4 -- 4.3 WIE ZIJN DE BEOEFENAARS? 5 -- 4.4 TYPISCH ZORGTRAJECT VAN EEN PATIËNT 6 -- 4.4.1 De sprong wagen naar alternatieve geneeswijzen 6 -- 4.4.2 De consultatie 7 -- 4.5 FINANCIËLE ASPECTEN 7 -- 4.6 WAARDERING DOOR DE PATIËNTEN 8 -- 5 IS DE WERKZAAMHEID BEWEZEN? 9 -- 5.1 DE WETENSCHAPPELIJKE LITERATUUR: GEEN ENKEL BEWIJS VAN WERKZAAMHEID 9 -- 5.2 HET STANDPUNT VAN DE PATIËNTEN 9 -- 5.3 WAT ZIJN DE RISICO’S? 10 -- 6 HOE WORDT MEN HOMEOPAAT? 10 -- 7 WETTELIJK KADER 11 -- 7.1 ACHTERGROND 11 -- 7.2 DE WET “COLLA” 11 -- 7.3 GEVOLGEN VAN DE GEDEELTELIJKE UITVOERING VAN DE “WET COLLA” 13 -- 7.4 DE HOMEOPATHISCHE MIDDELEN 13 -- 8 CONCLUSIE: WAT ZIJN DE TOEKOMSTIGE UITDAGINGEN? 13 -- 9 ER IS GEEN WETENSCHAPPELIJK BEWIJS VAN KLINISCHE -- WERKZAAMHEID 14 -- 10 DE WET COLLA TOEPASSEN? 14 -- 11 DE VEILIGHEID VAN DE PATIËNTEN GARANDEREN 14 -- 12 AANBEVELINGEN 15 -- 13 REFERENTIES 15
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".