MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197059400 · doi:10.1007/s40037-021-00682-9

Thoughts that breathe, and words that burn: poetic inquiry within health professions education

2021· article· en· W3197059400 on OpenAlexaff
Megan E. L. Brown, Martina Kelly, Gabrielle M. Finn

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Medical Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryHealth professionsMedical educationPsychologyMedicineHealth careLiteratureArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Qualitative inquiry is increasingly popular in health professions education, and there has been a move to solidify processes of analysis to demystify the practice and increase rigour. Whilst important, being bound too heavily by methodological processes potentially represses the imaginative creativity of qualitative expression and interpretation-traditional cornerstones of the approach. Rigid adherence to analytic steps risks leaving no time or space for moments of 'wonder' or emotional responses which facilitate rich engagement. Poetic inquiry, defined as research which uses poetry 'as, in, [or] for inquiry', offers ways to encourage creativity and deep engagement with qualitative data within health professions education. Poetic inquiry attends carefully to participant language, can deepen researcher reflexivity, may increase the emotive impact of research, and promotes an efficiency of qualitative expression through the use of 'razor sharp' language. This A Qualitative Space paper introduces the approach by outlining how it may be applied to inquiry within health professions education. Approaches to engaging with poetic inquiry are discussed and illustrated using examples from the field's scholarship. Finally, recommendations for interested researchers on how to engage with poetic inquiry are made, including suggestions as to how to poetize existing qualitative research practices.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.136
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1360.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0270.103
Scholarly communication0.0300.022
Open science0.0030.021
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Methods

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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on Medical EducationSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207