MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4206715566 · doi:10.1097/01.acm.0000284457.28598.b8

Commentary

2007· article· en· W4206715566 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Audrey Shafer

Notice bibliographique

RevueAcademic Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueEmotions and Moral Behavior
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPoetryThe artsBridge (graph theory)HumanityMeaning (existential)Subject (documents)PsychologySociologyArt historyPsychoanalysisHistoryArtLiteratureVisual artsLawMedicineLibrary sciencePolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Science and the arts are commonly viewed as two distinct epistemologies for understanding human nature, and hence are erected as separate and unique pillars of inquiry. Scientific explorations foundational to modern medicine detail facets of the human body, yet fail to explain what it means to be a person. Across the chasm, poetry and the arts grapple with the complexities of human emotion and the struggle for meaning, yet rarely invoke a scientific model of understanding. Although a number of outstanding literary works use science or science fiction as content (e.g., Copenhagen, by Michael Frayn, explores a critical, historical moment in science, and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein stirs the debate on the relationship between scientific experimentation and humanity), few works of art, and even fewer poems, bridge the gap between scientific inquiry and art. Enter “Rope Bridge” by Nan Cohen, a former Stanford Stegner Fellow and Jones Lecturer in poetry. The poem describes a now classic 1974 psychology study by Dutton and Aron1 on attribution of emotion in which young, unaccompanied men were approached by a female investigator after the subject had crossed either a low sturdy bridge or the famous Capilano Canyon Suspension Bridge in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The 450-foot-long bridge “twists and bucks in the wind” 230 feet above a rushing river. The working hypothesis of the study, “an attractive female is seen as more attractive by males who encounter her while they experience a strong emotion (fear) than by males not experiencing a strong emotion,”1 (p511) based on theories by Schacter and Singer,2 is confirmed by chi-square analysis, two-tailed t tests, and other significant P values. In Cohen's poem, the results are stated: “And one by one, the men who crossed the bridge, / who did not fall, chose love for their reward.” Current neuroendocrinologic and imaging studies investigate the molecular basis of love.3,4 Such scientific literature is replete with kill-the-mood statements: “intense romantic love is importantly influenced by subcortical reward regions that are dopamine-rich,” and “romantic love is primarily a neural system associated with motivation to acquire a reward, rather than a specific emotion.”4 (p61) Even the title of the study, “Romantic love: An fMRI study of a neural mechanism for mate choice” (italics added) indicates that candlelight dinners will not be featured. When scientific writing does stretch to include lay terminology, the writing still tends to be devoid of emotion, conforming to the dry fact and conclusion-laden nature of the bulk of scientific and medical literature. For instance, the review article, “The Neurobiology of Love,” concludes: “love is a joyful and useful activity that encompasses wellness and feelings of well-being.”5 (p175) The power of Cohen's poem lies in its ease of bridging the two worlds of science and art via language. We move seamlessly from “the control group,” “classic experiment,” and “the attribution of a heightened state” to an enigmatic question “Who would say: it is fear / the fear that sleeps in me, easily roused / from its light sleep, with wind, with ropes, with words?” Tellingly, she ends the poem as a question—further inquiry, more knowledge, is needed to understand the complex interactions between fear and love. Scientific papers, such as the article on which the poem is based, likewise open the door to further investigation: “A more conclusive explanation of the mechanics of the anxiety–sexual arousal link must await the conclusion of present laboratory studies designed specifically to investigate this problem.”1 (p517) Another clever overlap in scientific/lyric language occurs in the replication of the investigator's questions within the body of the poem. Poetry is dependent not only on words but on pauses. In this section, “did you find her attractive? How attractive? / __Very __Somewhat __Not at all,” Cohen uses the caesurae of the questions and the blanks for tick marks to slow the reader and invite reflection. The poem is not meant to precisely recount Dutton and Aron's study. But it does remain truer to science than many other creative works. For instance, the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) tenderly explores the neural loci of love but is rooted in science fiction. Cohen's “Rope Bridge,” however, successfully connects science and art with grace, lyricism, and playfulness as it meditates on one of the profound mysteries of life: love. Audrey Shafer, MD

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut 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: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,174
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,995

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

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 Opus0,074
Tête enseignante GPT0,432
Écart entre enseignants0,358 · 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.

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

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAcademic MedicineMême sujetEmotions and Moral BehaviorTravaux en français237 207