MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Checking your ego at the door

2007· article· en· W2116763238 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCoaching Methods and Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsId, ego and super-egoPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I’VE ALWAYS THOUGHT OF MYSELF AS A TEAM PLAYER. BUT FROM MAY 2 to 5, 2007, at the “Strengthening the Bond” Tri-professional Conference: Collaborating for Optimal Patient Care in Banff, Alberta, I found out that I’m not. You too, my dear colleagues, may be at risk of suboptimal team work due to subconscious narcissistic properties. Most pharmacists can think of times when they have clashed with other health care professionals. I have told my story about a physician who told me to “f—— off” as I pointed out a potential drug interaction or the one about the patient’s nitro patch taped to her arm because the nurse forgot to remove the backing. I’ve spent many hours entertaining my colleagues with stories of these antics and I’ve listened and laughed along as they regaled me with their hilarious tales of health care hijinks. Then I went to Banff, along with over 650 pharmacists, physicians, and nurses to attend the first interdisciplinary conference of its kind in Alberta and my perspective suddenly changed. The conference opened with speaker Yvonne Camus, who was the only female member of the 4-person Canadian team sent to Borneo in 2001 to participate in the World Champion Eco-Challenge Games. She stood before the audience and admitted that she had been the weakest part of that team. Now, I was part of the conference planning committee and my first thought was “why would we hire a motivational speaker who admits to being the weakest part of the team?” It seemed counterintuitive when the audience was full of professionals who are considered to be leaders merely by holding a conference like this in the first place. But as Ms. Camus pointed out, it’s not about who leads the team, but about working together toward an ultimate goal. That means that a team doesn’t revel in the flaws or limitations of its individuals, but that they assist and empower each other to achieve success. Although we say we are team players who want to collaborate for optimal patient care, I wonder if that’s what we really want. We are taught, mentored, and examined on our abilities to communicate, implement, and recall knowledge and skills under stressful situations, but are we ever really taught to accept and educate our colleagues and ultimately overlook any shortcomings they might have? Our universities now teach interdisciplinary courses, but their students face obstacles that they may not even recognize when trying to implement these practice models upon graduation. Dr. Zubin Austin, a professor at the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, spoke about the idea of professional cultures and interprofessional communication and how this influences our ability to effectively collaborate. We may not realize that our professional education is a form of enculturation, resulting in very distinct cultures existing in medicine, nursing, and pharmacy. He also explained that although our professions may be separated by relatively small “cultural distances,” there may be relatively large differences in our patterns of communication. One example, the lack of a common definition for “taking responsibility,” Dr. Austin explained, is at the core of the professional-patient covenant, but there are conflicting ideas of what “responsibility” means in a legal, ethical, and personal sense. This should be clarified so all members of the team share its common understanding. Ms. Camus had pointed out to us that “it’s the small things that will bring any team down.” In order for us to improve our interdisciplinary collaboration, we need to overcome the stereotypes of our colleagues and admit that we too have weaknesses. As heard throughout the conference, the traditional approaches to patient management need to change and we can start by accentuating our colleagues’ strengths rather than focusing on their shortcomings. If we’re always trying to be ahead of our colleagues, then we’re not focused on making the team better. In the words of another speaker, Dr. Mamta Gautam, “We cannot entirely change the health care system. We can establish a supporting and collaborative work environment within this system. We are all on the same team and have the same goal.” I’m happy to dump my ego for that.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient 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 score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.293 · 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