MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W51840865

Stories in family practice: Part 1: Living the principles of family medicine

2006· article· en· W51840865 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cal Gutkin

Bibliographic record

VenueEurope PMC (PubMed Central) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecialtyMeaning (existential)Alternative medicineSession (web analytics)MedicineHealth careMedical educationFamily medicinePsychologyLawPsychotherapistComputer scienceWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few who attended will ever forget the keynote session at Family Medicine Forum 2005 where Rob Wedel and several of his family physician colleagues shared stories of their experiences in family practice. Regular readers of “Reflections” in Canadian Family Physician have expressed their appreciation to contributors whose stories deliver powerful messages about the meaning of being a family physician and about the challenges, joys, and rewards that are part of our specialty. When compiled, these stories also help describe the history of family medicine and the important role it has and will continue to have in the health care and social fabric of our nation. Rob and his colleagues are encouraging our College to collect as many stories in family medicine as possible to enable us to preserve our past and inspire our future. If you have a story, please send it to us at (ac.cpfc@ofni). The following, which took place in the early 1980s, is but one of my own stories. I always found my elderly patients an incredible source of inspiration and information—about medicine and about life. They often presented with challenging medical problems, diagnosis and treatment of which reminded me why I spent all those years studying and training to be a medical doctor or (as we say in one of our principles of family medicine) a skilled clinician. Getting to know our elderly patients over time, caring for their small and large medical concerns, and understanding them as people and not just as diseases or body parts, we learn to adapt our medical management to ensure the best possible approach for each individual patient. We cannot help but incorporate some of what we learn from these patients into our personal and professional growth. This aspect of practice exemplifies the principle of family medicine that focuses on the centrality of each patient and each patient-doctor relationship to all we do. I had been caring for a family for several years, a brother and sister in their 70s and their spouses, children, and grandchildren. One day, the brother and sister called to ask me to assume the care of their parents, whom I did not know, and who had recently lost their own family doctor. Dad was 97 and Mother 95. They had been married for 75 years and were suddenly not getting along; Dad was threatening to leave his wife. The family was at wits’ end, thinking that Dad was probably exhibiting signs of some kind of “senile dementia.” They had tried to intervene to no avail, and they asked me to try to resolve this problem. It was winter, and the couple did not get out much, so I agreed to visit them at home. It was early evening, but the December skies had already left Toronto’s west end in darkness. The modest red-brick bungalow of my new patients was brightened only slightly by a single bulb defining the front door of their snow-covered porch. I was greeted by Dad, who welcomed me warmly, and said he would see me alone before I met his wife. He was an engaging, very bright, and articulate gentleman who stood about 5 foot 10 inches and had a head of white hair that, despite his being almost 3 times my age, was triple the thickness of my own. He walked with a slightly stooped posture and shuffled a bit. He occasionally used a walking stick for balance. Over a cup of tea, he poured out memories of his life as a child in England through his turn-of-the-century voyage at age 18 across the Atlantic to seek work in what would become his new homeland, Canada. He spoke of his training as a civil engineering apprentice, his years of hard labour, and how he had eventually become head of the engineering department for the City of Toronto. Most of his conversation was about his family and the fulfilling life he had had as a husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. His health was excellent—other than some degenerative arthritis in his hips and lower back and occasional exertional dyspnea. He took no medications, and other than a shot of sherry before dinner and an occasional cigar, did not drink or smoke. His passion was his wife. He described how they met, the kind of “love at first sight” romantic story that sells dime novels and sometimes actually happens. He reminisced about the moment he first saw her on the ship coming over from England. Though she was only 16 years old, she was “the most beautiful woman I had ever seen.” He described their courtship and marriage 2 years later and the subsequent 75 years that he felt had “flown by.” He said he owed everything in his life to his wife who had given birth to, raised, and nurtured their 3 children, and him, through thick and thin with never-wavering love. Yet he was now suffering great despair because even she would not support something he felt had to be. He saw the end of his life nearing and decided it was time to return to England to die and be buried close to his parents and ancestors and the long line of English kings and queens that meant so much to him. His wife steadfastly refused, saying their offspring and lives were in Canada and that was where she, and her remains, would stay. He decided that, if this was her final position, he would have to leave her and head back to England on his own. If necessary, he said, he would seek a divorce.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurope PMC (PubMed Central)Same topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207