MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2413683698 · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3181f13321

Foreword

2010· article· en· W2413683698 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven L. Kanter

Notice bibliographique

RevueAcademic Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueInnovations in Medical Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAccreditationMedical educationSnapshot (computer storage)MedicinePolitical sciencePsychologyComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This “Snapshot of Medical Student Education in the United States and Canada,” published as a supplement to the September 2010 issue of Academic Medicine, comes at an important time. It is the 100th anniversary of the release of the Flexner Report, and it has been 10 years since the publication of the first “Snapshot” in a supplement to the September 2000 issue of the journal. As such, this collection of reports has value for both contemporary readers and future historians. First, the reports are structured to facilitate comparison between the medical student education programs described in the present collection and those described in the 2000 collection, and also to compare the current programs with one another. Second, both this collection and the one published in 2000 are comprehensive. They include reports from almost every accredited medical education program leading to the MD degree in the United States and Canada. Third, the reports offer an important picture of advances, innovations, and initiatives in these medical student education programs that can help contemporary readers understand the status of medical student education today, and that can help current and future historians gauge progress over the last decade and century. Fourth, the reports reveal important similarities and differences among medical student education programs. For example, some schools have specially-designed experiences in research (often called “scholarly concentrations”), while other schools offer students key clinical experiences in rural settings. Some schools have traditional clerkships, while others have longitudinal ones. Several schools have added buildings devoted to medical student education, and many have integrated ethics into the curriculum as a required component. Many schools are expanding their educational programs to additional campuses, and new medical schools are establishing their own innovative educational programs. This set of reports provides ready access to this information. Fifth, the reports include information on the governance and management structure of educational programs, which situates the curriculum within the context of a school and provides key insights about how decisions are made. These reports are valuable to both established and new medical schools. Established schools must engage in a self-study process to prepare for accreditation every eight years. During the self-study, a school's faculty and students examine the structure and function of their school's medical student education program. These reports provide important benchmarks and reveal a range of ideas for faculty and students to consider as they evaluate their own program. The reports provide similar opportunities for new schools that seek to build new and innovative programs. So, put this supplement in a special place on your bookshelf, or bookmark the supplement's Web page—it will serve you well as you engage in curricular renewal, prepare for reaccreditation, or seek to understand your own curricular efforts in a broader perspective. I wish to thank Brownie Anderson for recognizing the importance of these reports, pursuing the development of this collection, and serving ably as its editor. Al Bradford's tireless and excellent work on the September 2000 supplement earned him an invitation to do it again ten years later. He responded admirably, and much credit for the quality of this report belongs to Al. Steven L. Kanter, MD

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,660
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,000

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0060,004
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,6600,585

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,388
Écart entre enseignants0,365 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAcademic MedicineMême sujetInnovations in Medical EducationTravaux en français237 207