MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1479960546 · doi:10.4103/1357-6283.143747

Accounting for social accountability: Developing critiques of social accountability within medical education

2014· article· en· W1479960546 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation for Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsNOSM University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityReflexivitySocial accountingIdeologySociologyMeaning (existential)Political sciencePublic relationsEpistemologySocial scienceLawBusinessAccountingPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The concept of the social accountability of medical schools has garnered many followers, in response to a broad desire for greater social justice in health care. As its use has spread, the term 'social accountability' has become a meta-narrative for social justice and an inevitable and unquestionable good, while at the same time becoming increasingly ambiguous in its meaning and intent. In this article, we use the lenses of postmodernism and critical reflexivity to unpack the multiple meanings of social accountability. In our view, subjecting the concept of 'social accountability' to critique will enhance the ability to appraise the ways in which it is understood and enacted. DISCUSSION: We contend that critical reflexivity is necessary for social accountability to achieve its aspirations, and hence we must be prepared to become accountable not only for our actions, but also for the ideologies and discourses underlying them.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.427 · 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