MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613877146 · doi:10.1177/2374373517699269

Pursuing Humanistic Medicine in a Technological Age

2017· article· en· W2613877146 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Bertman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Patient Experience · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanismDistractionMedicineAlternative medicineQuality (philosophy)Primary careEngineering ethicsPsychologyNursingFamily medicineEngineeringPolitical sciencePathologyPhilosophyLawEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The humanistic practice of medicine requires that the practitioner have sufficient time and appropriate focus. Both elements, however, are under assault by the high-speed, distraction-filled environment within which primary care is delivered today. Despite or perhaps because of modern medicine's technological advances, the potentially healing bond between doctor and patient is being frayed and the quality of care consequently degraded.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.044
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.330 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Patient ExperienceSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207