Bioethics, Medical Humanities, and the Future of the "Field": Reflections on the Results of the ASBH Survey of North American Graduate Bioethics/Medical Humanities Training Programs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the summer of 1999 at the annual bioethics “summer camp” in Virginia, a discussion session was held on bioethics and medical humanities graduate programs. Participants represented a wide variety of institutions and programs—small and large, thriving and struggling—with an equally wide assortment of educational offerings— certicate, fellowship, M.A., and Ph.D.; traditional and web based. Some participants enthusiastically spoke of plans to launch new programs, even as others wondered aloud about the viability of their existing ones. Just as pressing were concerns and differences over what various programs prepared one to do and employment prospects for graduates. The discussion at that Virginia “summer camp” did not, of course, occur in a vacuum. It reected a broader conversation that was going on concerning the nature and direction of the “eld” (bioethics? medical humanities? academic? clinical? profession? discipline? hybrid? reform directed? co-opted? etc.). Indeed, as early as the rst annual meeting of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) in November of 1998 a motion was passed to study the growing number of training programs in bioethics and medical humanities and the implications for graduates of those programs. It was this ongoing conversation that ultimately prompted successive presidents of ASBH, Mary Faith Marshall and Laurie Zoloth, to appoint and support the ASBH Status of the Field Committee. The Committee’s rst project, done in cooperation with the Canadian Bioethics Society and with support from The Greenwall Foundation, was to survey graduate programs in North America that train individuals for work in bioethics or medical humanities. This special The American Journal of Bioethics forum focuses on the possible implications of the results of the ASBH Status of the Field Committee’s survey of graduate bioethics/medical humanities training programs in North America. The forum is divided into two sections. Section one consists of contributions from persons currently working in the eld (with all due caveats, “bioethics/medical humanities”), while section two comprises comments by current or former graduate students in bioethics/medical humanities programs. In order to ensure a balanced set of commentary articles covering a wide range of graduate student experiences while also addressing a common set of signicant questions about graduate bioethics and medical humanities programs, we asked all graduate student commentators to consider the following questions: 1. The Status of the Field Committee Chair, L. S. Rothenberg, sought the advice of the Director of the Ofce for Protection of Research Subjects at the University of California at Los Angeles, on the question of whether a certicate of exemption from the institutional review board (IRB), was needed for this study. He was advised that as a private organization, ASBH does not need an IRB certicate of exemption to publish research developed by the organization and funded by a private foundation grant to the organization. Keywords
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,046 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».