Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a method of organizing the psychosocial aspects of medical care in a new teaching hospital. An attempt is made to prevent some of the problems in care identified by the Duff and Hollingshead study (8). In order to be effective, however, psychiatrists must take major steps to overcome their marginal position in the medical profession. In addition, education of medical students to comprehend and manage psychosocial problems must begin at the outset of their medical educational experience and continue throughout. These are the prerequisites for a program of psychosocial care which then faces a major organizational challenge: to transfer aspects of psychosocial care from psychiatrists to others. Ordinary problems of living as distinct from psychiatric problems should not be referred to psychiatrists. In order to accomplish this aim, stable organizational structures ramifying throughout the health care system will be required. Such structures must support informal relationships based on personal respect and the achievements of good education. Psychosocial care in teaching hospitals is not likely to improve until it has representation in the power structure of the institution. Specific goals and methods of organizing psychosocial aspects of medical care are outlined.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".