Doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmg514, available online at www.fampra.oupjournals.org
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trends in access to complementary or alternative medicines via primary care in England: 1995–2001 Results from a follow-up national survey KJ Thomas, P Coleman and JP Nicholl Thomas KJ, Coleman P, Nicholl JP. Trends in access to complementary or alternative medicines via primary care in England: 1995–2001. Results from a follow-up national survey. Family Practice 2003; 20: 575–577. A prior national survey of one in eight randomly selected general practices in England estimated that 39 % of general practices [95 % confidence interval (CI) 35–43%] provided some access to complementary or alternative medicine (CAM) therapies in 1995. A repeat survey, conducted in 2001, estimated that one in two practices in England now offer their patients some access to CAMs (95 % CI 46–52%). The change was due to increased provision in-house; the proportion of practices making NHS referrals remained unchanged. The proportion of services supported by patient payments rose from 26 to 42%.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.900 | 0.685 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".