Bibliographic record
Abstract
This introduction provides an overview of the edited collection, placing the work in historical and pedagogical contexts. A root author and root metaphor are identified, where the Canadian physician EP Scarlett (from 1936) suggests, ‘A physician should be a kind of poet’. The metaphorical window is provided by the phrase ‘a kind of poet’, inviting us to see poetry and poets as placed on a wide spectrum of types and products. We enter the linked houses of medicine and poetry through this window, rather than the conventional front door, as slantwise observers of a tradition in which expert clinical and poetic practices share intensive production of metaphor. We note that medicine without an awareness of metaphor is zombie medicine – functional or instrumental, as the evidence-based application of reductive biomedicine. There is no escape from metaphor. But, of course, medicine is more than this – it is a culturally and historically-specific practice going beyond the instrumental to embrace ethical, aesthetic, political, and transcendental values. Every one of our authors, as we summarize in this chapter, has grappled deeply with such enriching translations from the literal to the metaphorical, to create a stimulating and controversial collection of essays re-defining relationships between medical cultures, clinical practices, medical education, and poetry.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.367 | 0.181 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".