Learning in Practice: Experiences and Perceptions of High-Scoring Physicians
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
One day while presenting a patient to me, a medical student suddenly burst into tears while discussing the patient’s feet. Now, since feet usually are not tearjerkers (unless, of course, they are very pungent feet), it was clear that something was bothering her. Until then, the student had appeared reserved, quiet, and somewhat sullen, doing all her work, but lacking the same bright-eyed enthusiasm as her colleagues. However, after this emotional outburst, she revealed that her long-term relationship had just fallen apart. Now, while I could have easily switched the topic back to feet (which in general is not a good idea in most conversations), this was a natural segue to an open discussion about the challenges of maintaining relationships and medical careers. Suddenly the teaching session began resembling an Oprah Winfrey show as the other students and housestaff eagerly contributed their own relationship “war stories.” One resident related how he had kept falling asleep while spending time with his former girlfriend and could barely stay awake while she was breaking up with him. Another resident recalled how a rather cowardly former boyfriend ended their relationship suddenly by sending a text message to her pager while she was on call. Others talked about how hard it was to stay focused and project enthusiasm at school and work when their relationships hit potholes. Moreover, the rigors of training often prevented them from recognizing when their significant others were unhappy, needed something, cheated on them, or even completely changed their appearances. Many of us have gone through relationship difficulties during medical school, postgraduate training, and beyond. Those that haven’t are either very fortunate or need to get out of the hospital more often to actually have relationships. You can know all the medical facts in the world, but inability to manage your life outside training and work may impair your ability to be a good physician. After all, unhappy physicians often do not make very good physicians. So are we neglecting the “heart” when training future physicians? While many textbooks teach students and residents how to interpret blood gases or treat Lyme disease, none really tell them how to handle complicated relationship issues and the interplay between one’s medical career and personal life. Our value as educators comes from not only our scientific and medical expertise, but also insights from our own life experiences. In many cases, we can serve as role models personally as well as professionally. Sometimes frank discussions can help students and housestaff learn how to better deal with relationship issues. These discussions can also help us better understand the people that we are teaching and, in turn, make us better teachers. After all, what’s the use of focusing on the feet, when the problem is with the “heart.” Bruce Y. Lee, MD, MBA
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».