MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254850863 · doi:10.26443/ijwpc.v1i1.29

Who Am I? Exploring Our Professional Identities: A Workshop for Health Care Professionals

2014· article· en· W2254850863 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christine Sanderson, Lisa Marr

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Whole Person Care · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonaIdentity (music)NegotiationMeaning (existential)Health professionalsDistancingHealth carePsychologyNursingMedical educationPublic relationsSociologyMedicineAestheticsPsychotherapistDiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political scienceHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives:1. Explore the history and meaning of each participant’s own professional identity2. Reflect on how professional identity affects the ability to be present with the patient3. Create a space to playfully explore benefits and burdens of the professional persona for caregivers and patients4. Consider possible new ways of being present as professional caregivers which may be safe, authentic, and often joyful.Background: Health care is highly professionalised. Health professionals are perceived as powerful and prestigious, with great responsibility for patients’ well-being. Social expectations of health professionals are extremely pervasive. Professionalisation involves learning and negotiating one’s role, and becoming comfortable in the professional persona. To offer whole person care requires the professional caregiver to be simply and authentically present with the patient. Yet the professional persona can be a barrier to presence, often using behaviours that are distancing, disease-focused, and impersonal. Over time, working as a professional can deeply affect our experience of ourselves.Workshop process: This workshop offers an opportunity to explore the effects of professional identities on us as caregivers and as persons.Some topics that will be considered: How do we experience our professional identities? Benefits and burdens of the roles we have adopted? Do they sustain us or not? How do they help, and hinder, our ability to be present for patients? How do we want to proceed in future? Through interactive, creative exercises in a supportive environment, participants will investigate the professional identities they have crafted over time. Using meditation and writing exercises, participants will reflect on the self that offers whole person care to patients, and what is needed for this self to flourish. Participants will share insights and challenges to being present, as a professional, with patients.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0320.014
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0070.033
Research integrity0.0130.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.359 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Whole Person CareSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207