The early encounter: shallow looking and the manifest presence in medical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If the pressure of patient flow limits a doctor’s visit to fifteen minutes, the importance of the early encounter is increasing. My proposal is dedicated to the first moment of the intersubjective encounter (with art or otherwise), that defined by the unconscious assessment a priori to conscious interpretation, its authority in the clinical encounter, and how to address this moment in medical education.The dynamics between observer and artwork occur in two stages. First, the observer’s senses are attacked, indeed overwhelmed, by the work. Our adaptive unconscious uses reflexive techniques (e.g. thin-slicing) to triage and resolve this information to a more manageable load. Because pattern collection, discovery, and comparison are under unconscious control, the question arises concerning accountability for snap judgments. By studying the patterns that thin-slicing utilizes and our immediate reaction given these patterns, the conscious self can predict—or at least become more accountable—for these judgments.Second, uncomfortable as the victim of a sensory attack, the observer dominates the artwork through the act of interpretation. The observer’s intellect and desire to interpret (both under conscious control) dissolve the uncertainty of the encounter by categorizing it into a comfortable system. Once attuned to this conscious power reversal, we can restrain the unconscious desire prompting the reversal and maintain space in the intersubjective encounter.As visual art is a strong vehicle to discuss the theory behind the dynamics of the early encounter, it is also the appropriate method by which to coach medical students through the early medical encounter.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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".