MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206327184 · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e31828fa212

Human Anatomy

2013· letter· en· W4206327184 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Wassmer, Alireza Jalali

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman bodyCompassionDissection (medical)Human anatomyHumanityPsychologyMeaning (existential)AnatomyMedicineLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: Anatomy. It can seem quite simple: You go to class, lab, write exams, and then receive a final grade. Very straightforward. However, it is not called just anatomy; it’s human anatomy. We cannot forget the most important component: the human. As humans, we walk this earth trying to make something of ourselves and perhaps even help others along the way. No matter what we do, we are human and should always maintain our humaneness: having or showing compassion or benevolence; being well-meaning and kind; serving a charitable rather than a profit-making purpose.1 The donors whose bodies are in our medical school’s anatomy laboratories exert their humaneness even after death. They are our mentors and heroes, who bestow upon us the ability and responsibility to show the same selflessness and humanity in helping others. Donors make it possible for students to understand the human body by means of dissection. Unfortunately, opportunities for dissection are dwindling for many students, as obtaining proper donors and anatomy teachers is quite difficult at some medical schools.2 Being able to physically dissect and search for vessels, muscles, and organs allows students to appreciate the delicate intricacies of the human body in addition to variation between donors. The perfect pictures in textbooks rarely mimic real life, which forces students to integrate knowledge of anatomy and physiology, carry out conceptual placement, and think “outside of the box” in order to properly identify structures. These skills are a product of the student–donor relationship. For each of us, being able to dissect human donors in undergraduate studies was both a privilege and a maturation process. We learned how to study and truly comprehend the interworkings of the human body while building a deep respect for and connection with humanity. This was an invaluable experience that every biomedical student should have the opportunity to embrace. The greatest gift that the donors have given us is not anatomy expertise but, rather, what it means to be humane—influencing others and improving life even after one’s time on earth. We encourage medical students to enjoy dissection courses and anatomy classes but to never forget the human component—the donors who lead us by example. Sarah Wassmer PhD candidate and anatomy sessional lecturer, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine and Clinical and Functional Anatomy, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine and Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; [email protected] Alireza Jalali, MD Professor of anatomy, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0040.010
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.263 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207