Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We are pleased to reply to the letter from Dr. Morris concerning our article entitled “Medicine as a Community of Practice: Implications for Medical Education,”1 as it encourages a wider discourse on the fundamental nature of learning within the medical community that can only serve to enhance our understanding of this important subject. Her letter continues a debate between sociocultural and constructivist perspectives of learning that often overlap and complement each other.2 Dr. Morris favors a sociocultural approach, stating that “learning-as-participation” is preferable to “learning-as-acquisition,” referring to an article by Sfard3 proposing that both approaches represent different metaphors for learning that are not mutually exclusive. We would like to make two points in reply. First, in our article, we synthesize much of the literature that views communities of practice as a social learning theory that results from a constructivist approach to education. We do not refer to any potential conflict between differing theoretical approaches and, in fact, believe that communities of practice entail both learning-as-participation and learning-as-acquisition. Second, Dr. Morris seems to believe that the two approaches are incompatible, a point with which we disagree. We can turn to Sfard3 for support. She states, “The relative advantages of each of the two metaphors make it difficult to give up either of them: Each has something to offer that the other cannot provide.” In addition, we do not believe that the sociocultural approach focuses exclusively on learning-as-participation. Learning-as-acquisition is equally important. Our article acknowledges this and emphasizes the centrality of engagement and participation to learning within communities of practice. We continue to believe that the communities of practice theory is robust enough to encompass both approaches, either as metaphors or as foundational elements of the overall theory. As Packer and Goicoechea2 observe: “Whether one attaches the label ‘learning’ to the part or to the whole, acquiring knowledge and expertise always entails participation in relationship and community and transformation both of the person and of the social world.” Richard L. Cruess, MDProfessor of surgery and core faculty member, Centre for Medical Education of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; [email protected] Sylvia R. Cruess, MDProfessor of medicine and core faculty member, Centre for Medical Education of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Yvonne Steinert, PhDProfessor of family medicine and director, Centre for Medical Education of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
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 | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».