MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2076584708 · doi:10.1176/pn.39.24.00390026

The Novel Side of Psychiatry

2004· article· en· W2076584708 sur OpenAlexaff
C. L. Atkins

Notice bibliographique

RevuePsychiatric News · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueAcademic Writing and Publishing
Établissements canadiensNovelis (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMAGIC (telescope)PublishingThe artsArt historyPsychologyPsychoanalysisHistoryArtVisual artsLiterature

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article ViewpointsFull AccessThe Novel Side of PsychiatryCharles Atkins, M.D.Charles AtkinsSearch for more papers by this author, M.D.Published Online:17 Dec 2004https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.39.24.00390026 When my patients discover I write crime fiction, thrillers in particular, they get a funny look. Why is their psychiatrist interested in crime, especially murder? Are they about to become fodder for the next novel? Should they leave now?The truth about why I've diversified in my professional life has a lot to do with striking a balance between medicine and the arts. It's a well-traveled road, from physician novelists like Somerset Maugham and Arthur Conan Doyle to modern-day best-selling authors like Robin Cook, F. Paul Wilson, and Michael Crichton.But for anyone who has written a book and then had it published—or for anyone who would like to do that—it's important to understand the difference between the art of writing and the business of publishing.As physicians, we're especially equipped for this duality, as we're used to the magic of bedside manner in one minute and then documenting for Medicare in the next.Years back, when I published my first novel, I wondered whether I was paving a road that would lead away from medicine. The fantasies at that time included truckloads of cash that would back up to my front door and frequent guest spots on “Oprah.” Well, the trucks were smaller than expected, and Oprah has yet to return my call—I guess she's happy with Dr. Phil.I quickly learned that publishing is a business and that being a doc helps quite a bit. In fact, some agents and publishers actually prefer to work with physicians and other professionals. Once you get involved with the world of books, it's easy to see why.We bring good stuff to the table. For starters, we work hard. We'd have never made it through pre-med, med, internship, and on and on if we couldn't keep our noses to the grindstone. Publishers have no tolerance for missed deadlines and sloppy work, especially when a book is scheduled to be released. The timeframes and turnarounds are tight. It's not uncommon for me to get a manuscript to proof and have about a week to make it through 400 pages. Hey, piece of cake—Remember being an intern and having to work up a patient at 3 a.m., research their condition, pull an article, and be prepared to present with all the lab work by 7 that morning?Next, people are fascinated by what I do. Whether writing fiction or nonfiction, we've got a leg up on the “write what you know” chestnut. A quick flip around the television dial reveals endless medically based shows, everything from reality plastic surgery to “CSI” to“ ER,” and the daytime soaps couldn't function without new and incurable diseases. And a scan of the best-seller racks almost always reveals a few docs smiling back from the covers of their latest diet or self-help books. Our expertise is widely sought.The only negatives I've heard about some docs in the publishing world—and this is probably true of new authors in general—are unrealistic expectations, such as truckloads of cash and appearing on“ Oprah,” and naivete about the amount of publicity that must be done by an author if a book is ever going to take off.I recently had an e-mail conversation with another physician author who bemoaned the lack of publicity for his book. It's a familiar theme, and unless you're already a best-seller, much of the responsibility for whether your baby takes off rests with you. In some ways it's just like opening a practice. If people don't know you're there, you'll have no business.Now, as I prepare to hit the marketing trail with my third novel—a horrific tale of love, murder, and revenge—I'm gearing up months in advance. But what's interesting this time, as I sit with reporters and answer questions that have been asked many times before, is that I find my responses have changed. As I become more successful as an author, the thought of leaving medicine becomes more remote. And it's not that medicine has become less stressful; it's something else. It's finding in medicine a similar balance to what I find with writing and publishing. It's the beauty of crafting fiction and the magic of sitting with a patient and then realizing how lucky I am to have these two things that I love, which at the end of the day also pay my bills. ▪Charles Atkins, M.D., is a psychiatrist and author. His latest novel, The Cadaver's Ball, will be out next spring. His Web site is<www.charlesatkins.com>. ISSUES NewArchived

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,878
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,414

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,235
Écart entre enseignants0,213 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePsychiatric NewsMême sujetAcademic Writing and PublishingTravaux en français237 207