THE STRUCTURE OF THE QUALITIES WHICH CAUSES TRUST TO THE DOCTOR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trust is a universal socio-psychological process that participates in the formation of a wide range of personality relations to the values of the surrounding world. Facts of the historical events, the biographies of famous personalities, political and ideological concepts and systems are put through the “filter of trust”. At the microsocial level, trust is expressed in the individual's faith in the reliability of family-marital, child-parenting, friendship, love, industrial, professional, and other relationships. The value of social relations, their recognition and acceptance, or denial and leveling will depend on the degree of trust in the partner, the team, the proposed concepts, the public or state institution. In this regard, trust can be considered a barometer and trigger (trigger) of interpersonal relations. This topic has a deep universal significance in connection with the total multi-level crisis of the confidence in our time. Naturally, it concerns the relations of patients and their relatives to the doctors, the organization of care for patients, and medicine in general. The purpose of the research is to study the structure of qualities of a doctor, which inspire confidence in the real and potential patients depending on their age and the interaction of such psychological characteristics as reflection, alexithymia and empathy. The studied literature showed that the research of the interaction of these qualities to solve the goal by other authors was not considered. Psychological tests were used to accomplish the goal and realization of the tasks: Toronto alexithimic scale, a method for determining the general reflection index by A. V. Karpov, a methodology for studying the indicators of empathy by I. M. Yusupov, test of the trust to doctor by A. V. Kustov. From the methods of statistical processing of the obtained results, the traditional methods were used to reveal the significance of differences between the compared groups, the correlation analysis between individual personality qualities and properties. Respondents of different ages took part in the study, since it was assumed that age is one of the conditions for building trust to a doctor. The respondents represented three standard age groups, each of which consisted of 40 people. In the group of youngsters, the average age was 20.7, in people of mature age – 42.3, in the elderly – 60.5 years. The study showed that the mechanisms of reflection and alexithymia from the standpoint of the continuum principle should be considered as “two sides of the same coin”. This means that the higher the level of reflection, the weaker the complex of alexithymia, and vice versa. It is found that reflection is a developing state. It is noted that the preference of certain qualities of the doctor depends on the age of the patients, on their ability to reflection and the level of alexithymia. Individuals with a high level of reflection appreciate the qualities of a doctor that are inherent in this group of respondents (the propensity for active dialogue with oneself, the ability to control one’s thoughts, feelings, the ability to control one’s own behavior, etc.). The work is presented on 17 pages, it includes 6 figures and tables and it also includes 24 publications on the topic under study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".