MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025674441 · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.00240

The limitations of a negotiation model for perimenopausal women

2001· article· en· W2025674441 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociology of Health & Illness · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationExplanatory modelExplanatory powerCredibilityTransactional leadershipTransactional analysisPsychologySocial psychologyMedicineSociologyPolitical scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The clinical negotiation model proposed by Katon and Kleinman (1981) puts culture at the very heart of the patient‐doctor relationship. As opposed to the asymmetric model that stresses an unequal power relationship between a dominant physician and a powerless patient, this transactional model suggests that we view the clinical encounter as the locus of a negotiation that takes place between two kinds of knowledge (lay and professional), and between two agendas: the doctor’s and the patient’s. According to such a model, the doctor is taught to listen to the patient’s own explanatory model of disease. Using an in‐depth analysis of clinical encounters between perimenopausal women and female physicians, and of separate interviews with individual doctors and patients concerning their respective explanatory models, this pilot study puts emphasis on both the limitations of a transactional model and on the strategies deployed by doctors for enhancing the credibility of hormonal replacement therapy.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it