Exploration of Touch in Faculty of Medicine? Presentation and exploration of touch and perspective in practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the medical profession, doctors are called in different ways to touch the patient: from the simple handshake to body examinations or sometimes a simple touch of the hand on a shoulder showing support and comforting. Touching does not necessarily mean being in an interpersonal contact of quality with someone. Yet reflection on touch is nearly absent from medical training. This workshop aims to promote awareness of the following: how to touch, feeling the contact with other and being touched ourselves. It is an introductory class on awareness of the elements involved in a quality touch that can confirm the other person in his/her personal integrity and dignity. Awakening the “Sensible” Being (ASB) is a formative practice geared toward care giving and support that includes manual practice. It examines how experiencing one’s own body and its movement stimulates the development of self-awareness and awareness of others, both of which are desirable qualities for healthcare professionals. Through exercises, the participants will be able to explore touch in general and with ASB protocols. We will use also time of reflexivity and of writing about the experience. The workshop will be divided as follows: 1) Introduction: Theorical perspectives and Phenomenology of touch and “being in contact”. 2) Experiential: time in class will be alternating between exploration of different types of touch, interspersed with short writing periods on the lived experience. 3) Conclusion: time to share our lived experiences, and presentation of the results from a research done on ASB (Lachance, 2016).
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".