MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891480550 · doi:10.15694/mep.2018.0000204.1

AnArtomy: Arts, Anatomy and Medicine - Human Beings Being Human

2018· article· en· W2891480550 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ian R. Walsh, Joseph F. Quinn, Andrea E. Spencer, Helen Noble

Bibliographic record

VenueMedEdPublish · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsFeelingCreativityPsychologyThe artsContext (archaeology)HumanismSocial connectednessMedical educationMedicineSocial psychologyVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Background The study of anatomy underpins medical education and is an important facet of clinical practice in various diverse disciplines. We explored the dynamic relationship between arts, anatomy and medicine, along the continuum axis of anatomy, medicine, healthcare and art. Aims 1. to foster and gauge artistic and creative expression within the context of medical science and practice. 2. to generate representative artwork examining the relationship between art, medicine and healthcare. Methods Two purposefully open and expressive creative workshops were held within the cadaveric dissection laboratory of the Queen's University Department of Anatomy; with awide variety of artistic substrates available for faculty and student participants. Themes included: the relationship between art and medicine, the impact art and science have upon each other and the effects of creativity on wellbeing. Accompanying questionnaires included a quantification of perceived relationships between art and medicine; with an estimation of connectedness to feelings. Qualitative items within each questionnaire also addressed key humanistic questions. Comparative analysis of quantitative results was by Student's t-testing; statistical significance being p values <0.05. Results, Summary and Conclusions There was a statistically significant increase in "connectedness to feelings" amongst participants over the course of the workshop. There was a trend for participants to agree or strongly agree that art and medicine were important to each other. Qualitative responses changed from specific, task-oriented hopes to responses more aligned with social/gregarious themes and those related to higher order functioning. Humanistic responses changed across the entire group from a largely fixed inclusion of the concept of emotions to broader, more altruistic visions; inclusive of communal, social views. There was a noticeable shift in emphasis from succinctly defined descriptive terms to more expressive terms; reflective and inclusive of caring, holistic practice. The most arresting and compelling results were those of the resulting representative artwork.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedEdPublishSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207