MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282032916 · doi:10.37964/cr24758

OPINION: The resilience myth: is it just in our heads?

2022· article· en· W4282032916 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Peter G. Brindley, Steven J. Reynolds

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physician Leadership · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSadnessMythologyTragedy (event)Work (physics)Resilience (materials science)Intensive carePsychological resiliencePsychologyHistoryAestheticsSocial psychologyArtMedicineEngineeringAngerPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We recently finished weeks of service in different intensive care units (ICUs) on opposite sides of the Canadian Rockies. Neither of us had the most crushing of weeks, but we both experienced sadness and exhaustion in ways that come from long hours coupled with tragedy for many, and the end of life for some. For too long, we had avoided frank discussions about our work environment and what drives us to work in the place we do and in the way we do.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0220.038
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.010

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physician LeadershipSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207