Bibliographic record
Abstract
The medical profession has been conscious of all the changes happening in society in the last quarter of the 20th century and has tried to cope with it. Numerous criticisms about the profession and its professionals have stimulated a revision of the professional's behaviour and professionalism. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada has launched its own proposal under the name of CanMEDS 2000. Among the revised roles and competences one find professionalism. This theme is at the heart of our profession since the early days of the 20th century when medicine became a modern profession. Responsibility for the patient remains fundamental for any doctor but, today, society expects more accountability from the medical profession. We have the obligation to educate our residents not only for healing and caring of patients but also for active participation in managing the healthcare system. In this paper, we examine this renewed post-modern professionalism. My intention is to propose a visual approach for the teaching of professionalism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".