Drawing a “Perfect Circle”: How Clinicians Can Become Better Communicators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SYNOPSIS: Despite the importance of communication in person-focused care, biomedical knowledge and technical skill development are often prioritized in physical therapy education. As clinicians and educators, we contend that mindfulness and reflection nurture effective communication approaches and support physical therapists in navigating the complexity and uncertainty that comprise most clinical interactions. We suggest that clinicians be mindful of the self, the patient, and the context when interacting with patients. Although being mindful cultivates awareness and curiosity, being reflective is an active practice that can be used while deliberating about the right thing to do or say in a particular situation. In this Viewpoint, we offer clinicians and educators suggestions for engaging in mindful and reflective practices. Through the contemplative practices of mindfulness and reflection, clinicians can better cultivate their communication expertise and good practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(10):579-584. Epub: 8 September 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11917
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 | 0.045 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.013 |
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.
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".