MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2084267508 · doi:10.1258/jrsm.2010.10k070

Mass extinction of life is imminent

2010· editorial· en· W2084267508 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kamran Abbasi

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2010
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEmpathy and Medical Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIgnoranceSkepticismSOCRATESPsychologyMedicinePhilosophyEpistemology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

When we chose the cover for this month's issue, the author advised care in selecting an image from the review of visual arts in hospital (JRSM 2010;103:490–9). Abstract art, he explained, makes patients feel uncomfortable, one of the messages of the paper. But the job of medical journals is to shake readers from their comfort zones. Clinical medicine is a place of uncertainty and clinicians are poorly trained at dealing with the limits of their knowledge. Confidence is king and ignorance an untouchable. While the culture of medical practice is being transformed by our information age – from paternalism to shared decision-making – it still takes extreme bravery for a clinician to admit ignorance in front of clinical colleagues or patients, not least because clinical colleagues and patients expect a knowledgeable answer. Yet medicine's bond with ignorance is ancient. The oracle of Delphi – and this issue of JRSM has a minor Delphic theme – proclaimed Socrates the wisest man of his age. Socrates argued that this was because he was prepared to accept the limits of his knowledge and unafraid of acknowledging his ignorance. Murray Enkin, an obstetrician from Canada, proposed seven stages of ignorance to summarize his clinical career ( Box 1). The seventh and highest stage of ignorance, he hypothesized, equated mostly closely with wisdom. Box 1 Seven stages of ignorance First stage: Innocence. You know you don't know, but you’re sure you can learn… Second stage: The facts. You know you still don't know, but facts are facts. Third stage: Naivete. You know what to do, but don't know how to do it. Fourth stage: Frustration. You know you don't know, but know that others know. Fifth stage: Expertise, the danger stage. You think that you know, and others think that you know. Sixth stage: Pyrrhic success. You know that you don't know, but others think that you know. Seventh stage: Ignorance. You know that you don't know, others know that you don't know, and it doesn't matter. From: Enkin M. The seven stages of ignorance. Birth 2008;35:169–70 The Socratic method is popular with medical teachers. Socratic dialogues often find their way into medical journals, as with this issue (JRSM 2010;103:484–9). But this appreciation of ignorance struggles to find its way to the frontlines of patient care. Clinical medicine remains a hard-nosed enterprise unable to eliminate the dynamics of power between doctor and patient. ‘Wise medical instructors do not fill students’ heads with facts,’ write our budding Platos, ‘but adopt a feigned position of ignorance from which to ask probing questions so they arrive eventually at insights that are the true prerequisite for gaining knowledge’. Unfortunately, those same students only realize many years later, possibly when they become medical instructors, that although knowledge is good, ignorance is not a professional sin. The JRSM's Socratic dialogue concludes with Athena, Goddess of Wisdom, advising that clinicians must hold their medical knowledge lightly and with humility, and constantly ask questions. She might also add that medicine must reconnect with the ethic of human kinship, by which the authors of an editorial on social governance argue that we should understand that as humans we share one humanity, live on one earth, and that our values, decisions, and choices affect others (JRSM 2010;103:475–7). Either that or we risk a sixth mass extinction, argues Dennis V Razis of the Delphi Society in Athens (JRSM 2010;103:473–4). More humility and greater human kinship might be important milestones on the path of reinventing the clinical professions, repairing the damaged relationship between doctors and managers – highlighted by your contributions to this issue (JRSM 2010;103:511–12) – and saving the planet from the catastrophe of the human species. As Razis puts it: ‘The risk of mass extinction of life is real and possibly imminent’. Where is Socrates when he is needed most?

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,026
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,088

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,025
Communication savante0,0100,018
Science ouverte0,0010,013
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,016
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0260,009

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 Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,291
Écart entre enseignants0,280 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

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

En bref

Citations1
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the Royal Society of MedicineMême sujetEmpathy and Medical EducationTravaux en français237 207