MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086875406 · doi:10.1370/afm.2568

In, But Out of Touch: Connecting With Patients During the Virtual Visit

2020· article· en· W3086875406 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Family Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBody Image and Dysmorphia Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWonderMedicineMeaning (existential)Function (biology)HumanityTherapeutic touchCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)NursingInternet privacyAestheticsAlternative medicinePsychologySocial psychologyPsychotherapistPathologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Covid-19 has rapidly changed physician-patient interaction, from hands-on to hands-off medicine. In this essay, 2 family physicians on different continents reflect on the meaning of touch in clinical practice and how virtual care is transforming this tacit aspect of patient care. Although technology enables physicians to stay in touch with patients verbally, we have lost the ability to physically touch. Traditionally, touch is central to medical practice, physical examination guides diagnosis and informs management. But the silent language of touch fulfills a deeper symbolic function, enabling physicians to acknowledge patient concerns in a tangible way. Touch expresses healing, extending beyond skin-to-skin contact to express humanity, caring, and connection. As we adapt to novel technologies, we wonder how, as family physicians, we will adapt our clinical acumen to extend our ability to connect with patients.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.189 · 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