MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143608323 · doi:10.1136/jme.2003.005942

Patient–physician relationship in the aftermath of war

2006· article· en· W2143608323 on OpenAlexaff
V Stambolović, Marko Đurić, Danijela Đonić, Julija Kelečević, Zoran Rakočević

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Ethics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerbianEmpowermentPatient EmpowermentSet (abstract data type)MedicineState (computer science)Family medicineHealth carePsychologyLawPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the period of conflict that led to the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia, the Serbian healthcare system suffered greatly; as a result, relationships between physicians and their patients reached an all-time low. After cessation of the various wars, a group of medical students attempted to assess the state of the patient-physician relationship in Serbia. Their study showed a relationship characterised by very meek patients and rather arrogant physicians. Empowered by their engagement, the medical students constructed a set of standards for achieving a proper patient-physician relationship; physicians should be capable of hearing and understanding patients, with the result that the ensuing empowerment can enable patients and physicians to create a tool for changing the relationship between both parties.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EthicsSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207