ORDINATORS REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT DOCTOR'S COMMUNICATIVE SKILLS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: to describe the residents’ views about the communication skills of a doctor. Research question: What are the residents' perceptions of physician communication skills from the perspective of the Calgary-Cambridge Model of Medical Consultation? Methods: Qualitative Research. The data collection method was a focus group discussion. The study used qualitative-quantitative deductive content analysis and used OpenCode 4.02 to encode and categorize text units. Analytical triangulation served as a data validation strategy. Results: The study found that residents had an idea of the communication skills required by a doctor at all stages of a medical consultation using the Calgary-Cambridge model. Informants are most knowledgeable about the skills in the "start consultation", "examination" and "explain and planning" phases. Residents' knowledge of the communication skills required by the doctor at the “information gathering” and “consultation completion” stages is virtually non-existent. Practical relevance: the research results can be used in the design of communication skills training programs in a medical university.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".