MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139114227 · doi:10.5770/cgj.18.152

I Have Something Interesting To Talk To You About: Speaking To Disagree, Agreeably

2015· article· en· W2139114227 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kenneth Rockwood

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geriatrics Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAction (physics)Health careInterpersonal communicationHealth professionalsNursingRelation (database)Medical educationSocial psychologyPsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Working in health care can sometimes be exhilarating. At other times it is exhausting, especially if there is interpersonal conflict amongst health-care providers about the best course of action. This can occur in relation to the care of frail older adults. Physicians and other health-care professionals often are not taught how to disagree. This short essay outlines a few steps that can be followed to allow disagreements to be identified in a respectful manner, focused on a solution that requires something from each side. Given the importance of interdisciplinary collaborative care in geriatric medicine, having a structured approach to disagreement is likely to be a useful tool in the geriatrician's kit.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geriatrics JournalSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207