MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte

Checking your ego at the door

2007· article· en· W2116763238 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

venuePublié dans une revue dont le pays d'attache est le Canada.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueCoaching Methods and Impact
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésId, ego and super-egoPsychologySocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

I’VE ALWAYS THOUGHT OF MYSELF AS A TEAM PLAYER. BUT FROM MAY 2 to 5, 2007, at the “Strengthening the Bond” Tri-professional Conference: Collaborating for Optimal Patient Care in Banff, Alberta, I found out that I’m not. You too, my dear colleagues, may be at risk of suboptimal team work due to subconscious narcissistic properties. Most pharmacists can think of times when they have clashed with other health care professionals. I have told my story about a physician who told me to “f—— off” as I pointed out a potential drug interaction or the one about the patient’s nitro patch taped to her arm because the nurse forgot to remove the backing. I’ve spent many hours entertaining my colleagues with stories of these antics and I’ve listened and laughed along as they regaled me with their hilarious tales of health care hijinks. Then I went to Banff, along with over 650 pharmacists, physicians, and nurses to attend the first interdisciplinary conference of its kind in Alberta and my perspective suddenly changed. The conference opened with speaker Yvonne Camus, who was the only female member of the 4-person Canadian team sent to Borneo in 2001 to participate in the World Champion Eco-Challenge Games. She stood before the audience and admitted that she had been the weakest part of that team. Now, I was part of the conference planning committee and my first thought was “why would we hire a motivational speaker who admits to being the weakest part of the team?” It seemed counterintuitive when the audience was full of professionals who are considered to be leaders merely by holding a conference like this in the first place. But as Ms. Camus pointed out, it’s not about who leads the team, but about working together toward an ultimate goal. That means that a team doesn’t revel in the flaws or limitations of its individuals, but that they assist and empower each other to achieve success. Although we say we are team players who want to collaborate for optimal patient care, I wonder if that’s what we really want. We are taught, mentored, and examined on our abilities to communicate, implement, and recall knowledge and skills under stressful situations, but are we ever really taught to accept and educate our colleagues and ultimately overlook any shortcomings they might have? Our universities now teach interdisciplinary courses, but their students face obstacles that they may not even recognize when trying to implement these practice models upon graduation. Dr. Zubin Austin, a professor at the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, spoke about the idea of professional cultures and interprofessional communication and how this influences our ability to effectively collaborate. We may not realize that our professional education is a form of enculturation, resulting in very distinct cultures existing in medicine, nursing, and pharmacy. He also explained that although our professions may be separated by relatively small “cultural distances,” there may be relatively large differences in our patterns of communication. One example, the lack of a common definition for “taking responsibility,” Dr. Austin explained, is at the core of the professional-patient covenant, but there are conflicting ideas of what “responsibility” means in a legal, ethical, and personal sense. This should be clarified so all members of the team share its common understanding. Ms. Camus had pointed out to us that “it’s the small things that will bring any team down.” In order for us to improve our interdisciplinary collaboration, we need to overcome the stereotypes of our colleagues and admit that we too have weaknesses. As heard throughout the conference, the traditional approaches to patient management need to change and we can start by accentuating our colleagues’ strengths rather than focusing on their shortcomings. If we’re always trying to be ahead of our colleagues, then we’re not focused on making the team better. In the words of another speaker, Dr. Mamta Gautam, “We cannot entirely change the health care system. We can establish a supporting and collaborative work environment within this system. We are all on the same team and have the same goal.” I’m happy to dump my ego for that.

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.

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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,648
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,000

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 Opus0,083
Tête enseignante GPT0,376
Écart entre enseignants0,293 · 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