MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996063784

Profili motivazionali, identita e status

2006· book-chapter· en· W6996063784 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Brescia) · 2006
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionQuarter (Canadian coin)TypologyEliteIdentity (music)Closure (psychology)General practiceSample (material)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three were the main questions of this paper. First, how many ways of being a general practitioner are there in Italy and can they be generalized as to make a typology of general practitioners? Second, do physicians believe that they have a common identity? Third, can the elite segment of general practitioners be analyzed as a Weberian status group? \nThe research involved a survey (taken in 2004) on 1.162 general practitioners. The sample was stratified by sex, age and region. \nSumming up, three kinds of general practitioners have been identified: physicians by chance, by passion and by profession. Physicians by passion are more frequently women and young; physicians by profession are more evidently men, bourgeois, older and, above all, doctor’s children; the picture of the physicians by chance is more fuzzy and blurred. A little more than a quarter of our sample said that doctors do not share a basic identity; those who actually think it but do not declare it openly are probably many more. As to the third question, self recruitment rate is about 10% and is higher among the youngest and the oldest, while a 32% comes from the upper class. Moving from ascribed factors to acquisitive dimensions, an increasingly process of self-conscious identity as well as of social closure is under way. Our research allows us to reach such conclusions only from matrimonial and sociability choices. This is more evident in that third of doctors who marry university graduates who belong to the same social class. It is at the crossroads of this segment -made up of doctors who marry a colleague and have a father physician- that the conditions for a status group are more likely to be found. In questo capitolo l’autore si pone, essenzialmente, tre interrogativi/obiettivi fra di loro intrecciati. Il primo riguarda la possibilità di individuare quanti e quali modi di essere medico di medicina generale esistano oggi in Italia. Il secondo è relativo alla percezione diretta che i medici hanno della propria identità e alla possibilità stessa di concepire un’identità comune. Il terzo consiste nell’indagare se esistano le condizioni affinché un settore della professione si configuri come un gruppo di status weberiano. \nQueste le risposte emerse agli interrogativi iniziali. 1. Sono stati individuati tre tipi di medici: i medici (un po’) per caso, quelli per passione e quelli per professione. Tendono ad essere medici per passione, più frequentemente, le donne e i giovani; sono più spesso medici per professione, invece, i maschi, gli individui di origine borghese, i più anziani e, soprattutto, coloro con un padre medico. 2. Poco meno di un quarto dei nostri intervistati ha dichiarato esplicitamente che fra i medici non esiste un’identità comune, ma coloro che lo pensano senza dirlo sono, molto probabilmente, più numerosi. A questo panorama fanno eccezione i trentenni. 3. Dalla ricerca si coglie, infine, un processo di innalzamento collettivo di status e di progressiva chiusura sociale a misura che si passi dalla dimensione ascritta a quella acquisitiva. I nostri questionari ci consentono di rilevarlo particolarmente in quel terzo dei medici che sposa persone laureate e della stessa classe: è nell’incrocio di quest’area con quelle, in parte coincidenti, dei medici che sposano un/a collega e di coloro che hanno un padre medico, che è più probabile si creino le condizioni di un gruppo di status.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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 venueInstitutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Brescia)Same topicDiversity and Career in MedicineFrench-language works237,207