MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127696528 · doi:10.26443/mjm.v6i1.762

Ideals, passion, and courage

2020· article· en· W3127696528 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Rina Bansal, Toni Nimeh

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCouragePassionFraternityHonorContext (archaeology)Ideal (ethics)MedicineWonderDignityPsychologyPsychotherapistSocial psychologyLawTheologyPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear MJM:Helping a fellow human being is likely the most common reason why students enter the medical profession. The immense satisfaction that we experience by helping another person motivates us to devote our lives to a profession that proclaims this as its raison d’être. However, as we enter the clinical years of medical education, it becomes evident that to achieve this in the context of medicine is indeed a challenge.Why is it that we have the ideals, yet still fail to help others the way we hoped to? On June 19th, 2000, the McGill Chapter of Phi Delta Epsilon medical fraternity had the honor of hosting Dr. Miguel N. Burnier Jr., Chairman of the Department of Ophthalmology, McGill University, as the Aaron Brown Lecturer. Dr. Burnier gave a lecture titled “A Story”, through which he communicated an inspiring message, and answered this unasked question. “What makes a good physician is not the knowledge one possesses, but three things: ideals, passion, and courage.”Ideals give direction to our lives. It is the ideal of wanting to help the sick that brought most of us to the doors of the medical profession. Through medicine we hoped to cure disease and thus alleviate suffering. However, the suffering of a patient is more than the symptoms of the disease, it is the consequences of the disease – physical, emotional, psychological, and social consequences. Only if we are able to recognize the distinction between disease and illness and address the full impact of both can we alleviate the suffering.Passion empowers ideals. The practice of medicine in the 21st century is a foreboding challenge. Physicians are inundated with increased numbers of patients and concomitant decreased availability of support staff and health care funding. These factors not only compromise patient care directly but they also affect the physician’s interactions with patients. Physicians, when working in stressful situations, rarely have enough time to spend with their patients. They are unable to provide the holistic care that is needed to alleviate the suffering. Furthermore, these behaviors and stressors are passed down to the residents and the medical students. The passion that we have as young medical students starts to decline as we face the similar challenges of worsening working conditions. The small, yet frequent difficulties we encounter on the way to becoming the “good doctors” we set out to become, make us question the realism of such an entity. Passion empowers us to practice our ideals and the loss of passion allows us to compromise our ideals.It is courage that will carry us through the difficult times that we may encounter as health care professionals. Courage is the capacity to suffer in the name of our ideals. When in situations that challenge our ideals and dampen our passion, it is courage that sustains us. Courage transforms the challenges we experience into opportunities to grow through suffering. As medical students develop courage, they give depth to their passion and ideals, and thus mature to become the role models they once followed. Thus, young medical professionals need to remember their ideals, sustain their passion, and harness their courage to achieve their goal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.048
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of MedicineSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207