Shame in medical education: A mindful approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shame is a ubiquitous and potentially damaging emotion with many nuances (embarrassment, humiliation, disgrace, remorse, ridicule etc.). It can be defined as “a state of experiencing oneself as devalued, diminished and an object of derision in the mind of another or others, which when internalized textures a sense of oneself”. Shame regulates social behaviour by penalizing deviations from the norm, and rewarding conformity. The influence of shame on physicians and medical learners is conspicuously absent from the literature on emotional challenges in medicine. The dearth of research on shame is not surprising given that “it is shameful and humiliating to admit that one has been shamed and humiliated.” (Lazare, 1987) Existing literature highlights the harmful effects of shame on both physicians and learners. Humiliation is detrimental to student well-being and can lead to feelings of self-doubt, alienation and inferiority, triggers of perfectionism and loss of empathy. Practicing physicians are prone to shame if their authority is undermined, and may exhibit dismissive, defensive, or aggressive behaviors in the face of criticism, patient conflict or disagreements with colleagues. This workshop will explore mechanisms and implications of shame in medicine and medical education. We will present results from interviews with Norwegian medical students, and use an empirically validated approach called Mindful Practice to investigate challenging themes facing health professionals. This approach utilizes critical awareness (investigating the sources of shame), shared dialogue (reflecting on the personal impact of such experiences) and elements of appreciative inquiry (identifying individual qualities that mitigate negative effects).
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".