Healing, the Patient Narrative-Story and the Medical Practitioner: A Relationship to Enhance Care for the Chronically Ill Patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient–health care practitioner communication is riddled with complexities. In this article the authors initially describe how careful listening to another, the patient, within the context of today's health care system has drifted from being an integral part of the “art” of medicine toward a methodological checklist of standard questions designed to support the “science” of medicine. Then they offer a way and a means for today's biomedically trained health care practitioner to rethink or reimagine the value of authentic listening. They conclude with a critical exploration of a pedagogic speaking-listening relationship located within an understanding of dialogue as a means of gaining health-related, patient-specific evidence. By attending to a patient's story through the health care practitioner's attentive listening, the health care practitioner together with the patient create a place whereby a dialogue exchange actually becomes an indispensable and health-related element fostering a process of mutual learning, knowing, and being.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".