Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical empathy has been increasingly recognized as an important component of both professionalism and good patient care. It is generally understood as identifying commonality between patient and provider and responding to this shared experience with appropriate care and concern. However, many clinical encounters are between strangers with little shared experience, which seems to present a challenge for both empathy and a sense of responsibility toward the patient. Physicians can also develop a deep sense of caring and responsibility by learning to appreciate the alterity, the otherness, of the patient, and this skill, like clinical empathy can be modeled and taught. Philosopher Emmanuel Levinas described respect for alterity as foundational to human relationships. That is, my primary experience in meeting other people is one of difference, not an immediate sense of similarity. This sense of difference is both superficial and profound, although in most cases we will recognize only the superficial. Recognizing the profundity of difference opens one up to a radical sense of alterity that is the source of ethics, including our responsibility to the other. By exploring Levinas’ descriptions of human responsibility, humans as infinite and unique, and the consequences of this philosophy for the clinical encounter, it is evident that respect for alterity represents an underappreciated source of human caring, accessible in clinical relationships, even between a patient and physician with radically different life experiences. The implications of this for medical education are that we must help students appreciate and respect both the commonality we share with our patients, and the differences that makes them special and worthy of our care and attention.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it