MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113281988 · doi:10.1136/ewjm.173.2.84

The sum of my parts

2000· article· en· W2113281988 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Weijer

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistory of Medical Practice
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I worry of late that I am not as good looking as I used to be. I stopped exercising about a year ago after a move to the country. The bucolic setting disagrees with me. Recently, I turned 36 years old. But these aren't the bases for my complaint. The problem is that time has treated me more cruelly than others similarly situated. The rest of my birth cohort seems filled with vim and vigor. I, on the other hand, am fleshy, pallid, and prone to fits of profuse perspiration. This year, I vow to do something about it. My first stop is my general practitioner, the best doctor I have ever had.“Stewart, this is the year I do it; tell me where I should start.”He reminds me of visits around this time over the last 3 years when he talkedme out of Prozac (1997), Viagra (1998), and an all-protein diet (1999).“I am way beyond all that. This is about releasing a happier me from a corporeal prison. A more beautiful me. A...” I go on at some length.Stewart suggests diet and exercise. “Impossible,” I retort,“I am up for tenure in the Fall.” He tells me that I'd have to gain a lot more weight before I am eligible to take a diet pill. I ponder this dilemma for some time. Then, in a flash, the answer comes to me: cosmetic surgery. Relief floods over me like warm butter. The Web site www.medicineonline.com reads as if it was written just for me.The “Bid for Surgery” section of the site describes itself as an“E-exchange for cosmetic surgery, dentistry, ophthalmology, and podiatry.” Inside is a virtual road map to bodily enhancement. Three dozen procedures are offered to stretch or snip my parts on cosmetic surgery's procrustean bed. I am to select one or more procedures, fill out a form detailing medical information, and then wait for the bids to flow in from practitioners across the United States. Narrowing the field of procedures is going to be a problem. I decide to ask my life partner to select for me. A mistake. I get back a list of 8 procedures: Botox injections (for laughter lines—“Nothing's that funny,” my partner says), correction of enlarged male breasts, eyelid surgery, liposuction, nose surgery, scar revision (longstory), laser surgery for myopia, and teeth whitening (too much coffee while writing snappy commentaries). Clearly, we are going to need to set priorities.After a long heart-to-heart discussion, we settle on 4 procedures: eyelidsurgery, liposuction, laser surgery, and teeth whitening. Sharing a quality moment, we fill out the forms together and on their completion pause, warmed by the glow of my computer's new flat screen monitor. We both sit transfixed by my image reflected by the digital surface. Somehow, I already seem slimmer, more beautiful. My partner's hand rests on mine as I click the left mouse key:“submit—register and request a bid.” Yes, submit. The bidding among the various specialists lasts for 7 days. In the meantime, I ponder the ethics of all this—it is, after all, my day job.In short, it is perfectly acceptable to auction cosmetic surgery services. The clearest I can make it is to compare it to prostitution. My favorite political philosopher, Michael Walzer, argues that the distribution of a good (be it sex or health care) is determined by its meaning for a particular society.“People who believe that sexual intercourse is morally tied to love and marriage are likely to favor a ban on prostitution.... Sex can only be sold when it is understood in terms of pleasure and not exclusively in terms of married love...” (Spheres of Justice, Basic Books, 1984). If you believe that cosmetic procedures in particular, or medicine in general, is a commodity, then you are committed to view free market forces on price, bidding, and unequal access based on wealth as wholly unproblematic. As Walzersays, “there is no such thing as a maldistribution of consumer goods. It just doesn't matter, from the standpoint of complex equality, that you have a yacht and I don't...” (p 108). Nose jobs are the aesthetic equivalent of yachts, and cosmetic surgeons who ply their trade on the Internet are the new captains of medical industry. After a week, I had 4 bids on 2 procedures. Next time, I will have to say that I am willing to travel to California, the home of“Medicineonline.com.” I ponder how to choose the right doctor: the most procedures per year, best patient ratings, fewest lawsuits, cheapest, or most expensive? I decide that the procedure I use for selecting sushi restaurants is most appropriate: pick the most expensive. Like raw fish, surgery should not be cheap. The cost for the new me? $6591. Of course, I have6 more procedures to undergo. Sure it's a lot of money, but if I'm not worthit, who is? Of money—and he might have said the same of cosmetic surgery—the Bard said it is “that which makes the wappen'd widowwed again” (Timon of Athens IV:3).

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern Journal of MedicineSame topicHistory of Medical PracticeFrench-language works237,207