MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W410155293 · doi:10.1177/229255030401200207

Working for Free

2004· article· en· W410155293 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Russell Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surgeons believe in certain ideals. We believe we belong to a profession with intrinsic standards. These beliefs involve our duties to patients and our obligations to find the truth and patiently explain what we think in a way people can understand. We are translators and truth seekers and even though this sounds self-exalting, this is who we are. This explains the attractiveness of our work to idealistic young people, and even though the training is long, the goal is worthwhile. After extended training the time to earn a living has come, but it is a mistake to suppress our idealistic natures and concentrate only on finances. It is too easy to forget Wordsworth’s observation: “getting and spending, we lay waste our powers.” The best kept secret is: volunteer jobs are the best jobs. True, you don’t get paid, but you don’t pay tax either and you can learn things you would never learn any other way. You will develop a breadth of experience that your specialty practice would never allow. A specialty is focusing and that is one of its problems, it can be too focused. Doctors hate hospital committees, but committees are a good place to understand the bureaucratic mind and the world we live in. Hospitals need us to tell them when they have gone too far, and when they are proposing something doctors will not accept. Many draconian ideas are stopped in committee, and this is where your voice is needed. Imagine teaching plastic surgery. You might be the first plastic surgeon a medical student meets. Your inspiration could inspire a lifetime career. Explaining your experience to a trainee is an exercise in clarity and analysis. You will learn a great deal as a teacher. Imagine being chairperson of the ethics committee of a national surgical association. You would have the chance to find out what ethics are, how complaints are managed, and how ethics ideas change. No longer could you grumble about rules from Mount Olympus; you are now on the mount feeling fallible but understanding many sides of the questions and wondering how best to judge. You are seeking wisdom and fairness; representing and leading at the same time. The beauty of not being paid, even though the job is onerous and time consuming, is quite simple. You can never be successfully charged with staying in the job to feather your nest or as a paid lobbyist for one point of view. It is good to move on after a time and pass the job on to other colleagues. Imagine travelling to another country with a team of surgeons, nurses, and anesthetists to teach surgical techniques. You will make a difference and gain an understanding of the skill of surgeons abroad and what they need to improve outcomes. You will learn that surgeons abroad are very well trained, know many techniques, but don’t have the staff, equipment, drugs or instruments which you take for granted. You will understand, “it’s the economy, stupid.” You will learn that the surgeons you meet are far better at innovation and using what they have than you are. You will go to teach and be taught. You will be humbled by the gratitude shown by patients you help. Imagine working your way up the executive ladder of a local, provincial or national surgical association doing whatever duty is required and being involved in the debates of the issues as you take on various jobs along the way. These jobs are all unpaid, but think of the experience and insight you will gain. Imagine sitting on the governing councils of the provincial college as it decides issues regarding our profession. You will realize that the issues involved are far more complex and have greater implications than coffee room rants we enjoy as “stand-up entertainment.” Consider being on the board that chooses scholarship winners. You will find it very difficult to decide because the candidates are so well qualified, but you will bring your seasoned judgment to the task. Why volunteer? There is no pay, it takes time from your practice, and costs you money. You do it because you want to find out how things work. You do it to find out if you have skills other than surgery, and you do it because you believe it is worthwhile. In a cynical world where many actions are seen as self-promoting, you are an idealist and seek others like yourself. That is the reason you have to keep what you do quiet, for the more acclaim you get from volunteering, the more the reward ruins its intrinsic value. You do it because it is a good thing to do. If you find your practice less satisfying as the years go by, try some volunteering. It might be what the doctor ordered. John R Taylor

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.221
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.221
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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plastic SurgerySame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207