MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408399011 · doi:10.22374/cjgim.v14i4.345

William Osler (1849–1919) at the Roots of Evidence-Based Medicine

2019· article· en· W4408399011 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistory of Medical Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClassicsAncient historyTraditional medicineHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2019 marks the centenary of the death of William Osler, a Canadian by birth and internationally regarded as a leading physician of his time. His work, in Canada, the US, and the UK and eloquent writings spread his knowledge, thinking and way of practicing and teaching medicine. He advocated for the patient, rather than the disease, as the focus of medical practice, and his writings demonstrate his concerns for matching practice to the patient’s circumstances and expectations, honing the physician´s clinical skills, and using the best scientific evidence available at the moment. Osler’s approach is regarded by many as the beginning of modern medicine and has some interesting coincidental and intentional connections with evidence-based medicine (EBM) of current times. By coincidence, Osler was raised in Dundas, now part of Hamilton, Ontario, the eventual home of David Sackett, a Canadian by choice, who led the current era of EBM. Both began their academic careers at Canadian universities and ended their careers as professors at the University of Oxford. By intention, EBM emphasizes a critical mind, appraisal, and use of the scientific literature, and incorporation of the patient’s circumstances and preferences in reaching clinical decisions. The clinical epidemiologic science that underpins EBM is quite different from the observational pathophysiologic reasoning of Osler, and Osler may or may not have approved. In any event, many of his writings hold true for current medical practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it