Conceptual and philosophical bases the practice of family medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article, through a bibliographic review, aims to recount the origins of family medicine in the early days of Greek medical tradition and how its fundamental principles evolved over the centuries up to the early 20th century. Technological innovation and scientific advances between the two world wars led to a high degree of medical specialization, to the detriment of generalist approaches. However, prominent medical figures such as William Osler and others revived the concepts of general medicine, integrability, and holism, focusing their practice not on the disease but on the patient. From the 1950s onward, a movement emerged to reclaim the generalist medical perspective from a biopsychosocial standpoint, incorporating preventive, social, and community aspects. These laid the conceptual and philosophical foundations of a new medical specialty known as family and community medicine in the UK, the US, and Canada. This article describes how the first family physicians established the conceptual bases of this specialty around several core pillars: the biopsychosocial dimension, a comprehensive view of the patient within their family, social, and environmental context, and the incorporation of humanistic principles into bedside 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.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".