MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076584708 · doi:10.1176/pn.39.24.00390026

The Novel Side of Psychiatry

2004· article· en· W2076584708 on OpenAlexaff
C. L. Atkins

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric News · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsNovelis (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMAGIC (telescope)PublishingThe artsArt historyPsychologyPsychoanalysisHistoryArtVisual artsLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article ViewpointsFull AccessThe Novel Side of PsychiatryCharles Atkins, M.D.Charles AtkinsSearch for more papers by this author, M.D.Published Online:17 Dec 2004https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.39.24.00390026 When my patients discover I write crime fiction, thrillers in particular, they get a funny look. Why is their psychiatrist interested in crime, especially murder? Are they about to become fodder for the next novel? Should they leave now?The truth about why I've diversified in my professional life has a lot to do with striking a balance between medicine and the arts. It's a well-traveled road, from physician novelists like Somerset Maugham and Arthur Conan Doyle to modern-day best-selling authors like Robin Cook, F. Paul Wilson, and Michael Crichton.But for anyone who has written a book and then had it published—or for anyone who would like to do that—it's important to understand the difference between the art of writing and the business of publishing.As physicians, we're especially equipped for this duality, as we're used to the magic of bedside manner in one minute and then documenting for Medicare in the next.Years back, when I published my first novel, I wondered whether I was paving a road that would lead away from medicine. The fantasies at that time included truckloads of cash that would back up to my front door and frequent guest spots on “Oprah.” Well, the trucks were smaller than expected, and Oprah has yet to return my call—I guess she's happy with Dr. Phil.I quickly learned that publishing is a business and that being a doc helps quite a bit. In fact, some agents and publishers actually prefer to work with physicians and other professionals. Once you get involved with the world of books, it's easy to see why.We bring good stuff to the table. For starters, we work hard. We'd have never made it through pre-med, med, internship, and on and on if we couldn't keep our noses to the grindstone. Publishers have no tolerance for missed deadlines and sloppy work, especially when a book is scheduled to be released. The timeframes and turnarounds are tight. It's not uncommon for me to get a manuscript to proof and have about a week to make it through 400 pages. Hey, piece of cake—Remember being an intern and having to work up a patient at 3 a.m., research their condition, pull an article, and be prepared to present with all the lab work by 7 that morning?Next, people are fascinated by what I do. Whether writing fiction or nonfiction, we've got a leg up on the “write what you know” chestnut. A quick flip around the television dial reveals endless medically based shows, everything from reality plastic surgery to “CSI” to“ ER,” and the daytime soaps couldn't function without new and incurable diseases. And a scan of the best-seller racks almost always reveals a few docs smiling back from the covers of their latest diet or self-help books. Our expertise is widely sought.The only negatives I've heard about some docs in the publishing world—and this is probably true of new authors in general—are unrealistic expectations, such as truckloads of cash and appearing on“ Oprah,” and naivete about the amount of publicity that must be done by an author if a book is ever going to take off.I recently had an e-mail conversation with another physician author who bemoaned the lack of publicity for his book. It's a familiar theme, and unless you're already a best-seller, much of the responsibility for whether your baby takes off rests with you. In some ways it's just like opening a practice. If people don't know you're there, you'll have no business.Now, as I prepare to hit the marketing trail with my third novel—a horrific tale of love, murder, and revenge—I'm gearing up months in advance. But what's interesting this time, as I sit with reporters and answer questions that have been asked many times before, is that I find my responses have changed. As I become more successful as an author, the thought of leaving medicine becomes more remote. And it's not that medicine has become less stressful; it's something else. It's finding in medicine a similar balance to what I find with writing and publishing. It's the beauty of crafting fiction and the magic of sitting with a patient and then realizing how lucky I am to have these two things that I love, which at the end of the day also pay my bills. ▪Charles Atkins, M.D., is a psychiatrist and author. His latest novel, The Cadaver's Ball, will be out next spring. His Web site is . ISSUES NewArchived

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1890.066

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric NewsSame topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207