MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A cross‐cultural study of students’ approaches to professional dilemmas: sticks or ripples

2012· article· en· W1525191305 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ming‐Jung Ho, Chi‐Wei Lin, Yu‐Ting Chiu, Lorelei Lingard, Shiphra Ginsburg

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson CentreUniversity of TorontoWestern University
FundersNational Science Council
KeywordsPsychologyContext (archaeology)Affect (linguistics)Medical educationPedagogySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Medical educators internationally are faced with the challenge of teaching and assessing professionalism in their students. Some studies have drawn attention to contextual factors that influence students' responses to professional dilemmas. Although culture is a significant contextual factor, no research has examined student responses to professional dilemmas across different cultures. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews inquiring into reactions towards, and reasoning about, five video clips depicting students facing professional dilemmas were conducted with 24 final-year medical students in Taiwan. The interviews were transcribed and analysed according to the theoretical framework used in prior Canadian studies using the same videos and interview questions. RESULTS: The framework from previous Canadian research, including the components of principles, affect and implications, was generally applicable to the decision making of Taiwanese students, with some distinctions. Taiwanese students cited a few more avowed principles. Taiwanese students emphasised an additional unavowed principle that pertained to following the advice of more senior trainees. In addition to implications for patients, team members or themselves, Taiwanese students considered the impact of their responses on multiple relationships, including those with patients' families and alumni residents. Cultural norms were also cited by Taiwanese students. CONCLUSIONS: Medical educators must acknowledge students' reasoning in professionally challenging situations and guide students to balance considerations of principles, implications, affects and cultural norms. The prominence of Confucian relationalism in this study, exhibited by students' considerations of the rippling effects of their behaviours on all their social relationships, calls for further cross-cultural studies on medical professionalism to move the field beyond a Western individualist focus.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations60
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207