A Matter of Perspective: An Examination of the Patient-Physician Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daniella Conley titles her carefully orchestrated analysis of the multi-faceted patient-physician relationship “An Unbalanced Understanding,” and takes her epigraph from Anatole Broyard’s classic text in Medical Humanities, “The Patient Examines the Doctor”: “To the typical physician, my illness is a routine incident in his rounds, while for me it’s the crisis of my life.” One of the great strengths of her analysis is precisely the balance she herself maintains in considering this critical relationship from a number of angles: medical student as well as patient and physician; successes in medical communication as well as failures. Her thoughtful, lucidly written essay also adeptly weaves together examples from a range of texts, including some Daniella was led to by her own independent research and intellectual curiosity. The essay is a model of reading across and through disciplinary formations in the rapidly growing interdisciplinary field of literature and health studies. —Dr. Marjorie Stone
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 | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".