MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Checking your ego at the door

2007· article· en· W2116763238 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Catherine Biggs

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0280.017
Scholarly communication0.0160.017
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0050.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0940.055

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

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
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du CanadaSame topicCoaching Methods and ImpactFrench-language works237,207