MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W314417340

Language in Mind: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics

2014· article· en· W314417340 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allison Mesa

Bibliographic record

VenueEurope PMC (PubMed Central) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineCLARITYPhysical examinationMedical educationMedical historyMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The benefits of a readily accessible clinical reference become immediately apparent to every medical student tasked with conducting pre-dawn patient rounds. Written and edited by faculty and students at the University of Toronto, the Essentials of Clinical Examination Handbook aims to provide health care professionals with a portable yet comprehensive guide to symptom-based patient interviewing, focused physical examination, and diagnostic assessment. At a weighty 640 pages, it is unlikely to find its way into many white coat pockets — an unfortunate fact given the clarity and utility of much of the information within. The first and largest section of the book comprises 17 chapters intended to direct history taking and physical examination across all organ systems, including specific advice for pediatric and geriatric patients, and is a clear highlight of the text. The majority of the chapters employ a similar format. Relevant anatomy is briefly introduced through illustrations, followed by frequent chief complaints for a given system. The reader is then guided through a symptom-focused exam, describing information that should be elicited from the patient during the medical history and proper technique of pertinent physical exam maneuvers. The clinical examination is presented in a clear, logical manner that will mirror the flow of a successful doctor-patient interview. Each chapter concludes with a discussion of potential follow-up tests and imaging and their applicability to a number of common clinical presentations. Interspersed throughout the text are “clinical pearls,” asides that range from must-not-miss constellations of symptoms to appropriate timelines for disease screening to simple admonitions (“Make sure fingernails are trimmed!,” p. 126). Less successful are the 10 “Essentials” chapters, which provide additional insights into clinical specialties, including endocrinology, emergency medicine, infectious disease, and oncology, as well as more general topics such as pharmacology, fluid repletion, and imaging modalities. Certain chapters (Essentials of Dermatology, notably) are useful guides to common symptoms that would not be out of place among earlier chapters, though the hand-drawn depictions of rashes will do little to inspire confidence in one’s ability to identify them on a patient. Too often, however, the information in these chapters is presented in a dense, table-based manner akin to study guides for USMLE Step 1, making it nearly impossible to integrate into a successful patient interaction. Finally, the three appendices to the text cover the basics of evidence-based practice and clinical epidemiology, frequently used drugs for a variety of clinical scenarios, and common laboratory values, respectively. Of these, the tables of lab results prove the most useful, providing normal ranges, critically elevated, or decreased levels, and notes on their significance in an easy to browse format. While its lack of depth may render Essentials of Clinical Examination less useful in a specialty practice, medical, nursing, and physician assistant students should find the practical history and physical exam guidance invaluable. As an introductory reference to primary-care patient encounters, the book is highly recommended.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.015

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations33
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurope PMC (PubMed Central)Same topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207