MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324421418 · doi:10.1017/s031716710000593x

The Voices of Neurosurgeons: Doctors' Non-Medical Writing

2007· article· en· W2324421418 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mark Bernstein

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistory of Medical Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingMedical educationCreative writingCatharsisMedicineProject commissioningPsychologyVisual artsPsychoanalysisLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biomedical publishing is an integral part of medicine--both to those who produce it and those who consume it to improve the care of their patients. Non-medical writing by surgeons usually takes the form of creative non-fiction, generally reflective essays on moving and emotionally charged situations such as working in the trenches in war-time or in natural disasters, or dealing with individual patients. Such writing is both creative and cathartic for neurosurgeons, and can help educate patients thus improving the doctor-patient relationship. The purpose of this article is to encourage fellow neurosurgeons to pursue this enjoyable and valuable endeavour, to utter a call to arms so to speak.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.018
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.280 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicHistory of Medical PracticeFrench-language works237,207