MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2143555626 · doi:10.1200/jco.2010.33.5216

Negotiations and Love Songs

2011· article· en· W2143555626 sur OpenAlexaff
Daniel Rayson

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueLeadership and Management in Organizations
Établissements canadiensDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineNegotiationLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.5216 It is not uncommon that I lie about what I do for a living. When meeting strangers, basic introductions quickly turn into conversational quicksand for me. Whether posed for identification, categorization, assessment of social status, or to fill an empty conversation, inquiries about work are difficult to avoid. I know that such questions are innocent attempts to situate me somewhere in the atmosphere; we use the occupational compass to direct us toward an identifiable point in each other’s lives. I know this, and yet the job question, when it comes, often has me squirming for answers. My eyes dart away from the pair in front of me expecting a straightforward reply. The question triggers a peculiar type of “flight or fight response,” as if the topic of what I do for a living poses a personal threat. Most of the time I dodge the issue or flee entirely. At other times, I will stay and face the question in the easiest way possible, avoiding the pitfall of pretending to be an accountant in front of the local manager of H&R Block. First, I say I’m a doctor. In response to the inevitable question, “What kind . . . ?” I’ll sometimes blankly respond, “Oh, a general practitioner–a family doctor . . .” After all, I was one of those once, so it’s not really a bold-faced lie. I know about triaging colds and flu, about vaccinating kids and monitoring benign conditions. I know about diagnostic skills at risk of becoming blunted by seeing so many “walking well” and about desperately hoping not to miss a serious illness cloaked in a veneer of nonspecific anxieties and nondescript sensations and pains. But, in truth, I am no longer one of those. When I don’t escape or lie–there is no way to predetermine when the urge for honesty will suddenly strike–I answer, “I’m a cancer specialist,” and then feel the immediate lurch to the edge of a conversational cliff. This answer can be as shocking to my conversation partner as when I passingly ask someone, “How’s it going,” expecting a bland “not bad,” but instead have to respond to, “Oh just horrible–this has been one of the worst weeks of my life.” A momentarily stunned, uncomfortable silence follows. Responses to my profession confession vary and often include vignettes of how the person has been touched by cancer in the present or past, whether through the closest of loved ones or the most distant of acquaintances. When no such vignette is forthcoming, the conversation often turns to “how close ‘they’ are to a cure” or to imaginative hypotheses surrounding etiologies and best preventive methods. The possible collusion of industry and government in preventing the dissemination of a simple, natural cure also comes up commonly. Inevitably, there is a tinge of disbelief: Most people know someone who has been impacted by a malignancy, but have never met someone who deals with the onslaught of disease and despair day in and day out. For most people who are not medical professionals, just surviving an oncology job is cause for admiration and a certain degree of unqualified respect for sticking it out. From many we hear disbelieving comments similar to those that sometimes come from our own patients with whom we share their last hours, in between doses of narcotics or whispered over the hiss of oxygen from nasal prongs, “How do you do this every day?” Our students often have the same questions disguised in medically relevant discussions about treatment protocols, adverse effect management, and breaking bad news. To a very few, in moments when the need to unburden trumps the need to hide, I describe the field of medical oncology with the subtitle, Negotiations and Love Songs, stolen from a Paul Simon album of the same name. We negotiate constantly with patient and disease–with what is realistic, reasonable, possible, and tolerable. We negotiate hope and reality, cure and palliation, how many tests to order, and when to order them. We negotiate the interpretation of disease status, whether of impending threat to health and life or of tenuous and uncertain stability. We negotiate prognosis, time frames, treatment options, lines of therapy, whether clinical trials make sense or are relevant. We negotiate the disease course constantly with patients and their loved ones, individually or in groups. We negotiate the gauntlet of physical and emotional fragility, hypervigilance, symptomatic distress, and existential chaos. We negotiate what we are in control of and what is beyond human control. We are often forced JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY T H E A R T O F O N C O L O G Y VOLUME 29 NUMBER 6 FEBRUARY 2

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,370
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,898

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,003
Communication savante0,0100,008
Science ouverte0,0010,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,3700,142

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 Opus0,236
Tête enseignante GPT0,387
Écart entre enseignants0,151 · 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.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
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

Citations2
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Clinical OncologyMême sujetLeadership and Management in OrganizationsTravaux en français237 207