MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4249088139 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.428

Humour and urology: “Nota bene dick doc”

2013· article· en· W4249088139 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Nathan Lawrentschuk

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrologyMedicineArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

rology is serious business.As John Trachtenberg, learned urologist and prostatectomist in Toronto, Canada, always said while operating when the situation called for immediate perspective: "Look down at the patient, he is the brave one here..…compared to him, we have it easy out here, always remember that."Nothing could be closer to the truth.We all deal with illness in a professional manner; in most instances, we do so in a humble, caring and respectable way.However, in many instances, the ability to release tension has been lost.People are too busy catching up and debriefing and there is a separation of work and life that is probably healthy, but perhaps at the cost of "taking work home" in more subtle, subconscious ways.To deal with this, we use humour.It has always been a part of medicine, particularly in surgery.Oftentimes, the humour was black.The healing powers of humour and humour ability to soften difficult situations are well-described.1,2 However, in recent years, humour has evaporated and been replaced with political correctness.3 So it was refreshing when a technician found a written message to the operating team from the patient on the operating table.The message, in the form of a poem, was carefully folded in the patient's underpants

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0070.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.013

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicEmpathy and Medical Education→French-language works237,207→