MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312654372 · doi:10.26443/mjm.v20i2.940

A reflection on the role of anatomists in modern medical education: confronting meaning and mortality in the gross anatomy laboratory

2022· article· en· W4312654372 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Adam M.R. Groh

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Gross anatomyNarrativeMedicineReflection (computer programming)Cadaveric spasmAnatomyEpistemologyLiteraturePhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modes of anatomical instruction (especially the need to dissect cadavers) have been contested for generations. The present narrative provides an opportunity to re-approach this age-old debate and contemplate the state of anatomical sciences education through a narrative reflection of an encounter with a donor in the cadaveric anatomy laboratory.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0240.081
Scholarly communication0.0130.015
Open science0.0030.016
Research integrity0.0150.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueMcGill Journal of MedicineSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207