Perceived relevance of anatomy to clerkship: opinions of an inaugural class of final year MD undergraduate students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This poster outlines results of a pilot survey undertaken to evaluate the perceptions of a graduating class of medical students about the relevance of the anatomy instruction received to subsequent training during clerkship years. A questionnaire was completed by Year 4 students at the University of British Columbia's Southern Medical Program (n=32). This group of students formed the inaugural intake into the MD undergraduate distributed program at Kelowna, BC. Students received their anatomy instruction in Years 1 & 2 of a PBL‐based curriculum in which regional anatomy was taught through didactic sessions and cadaveric dissections, supplemented by prosections and use of anatomical models. The aim of the survey was to assess how much students considered the anatomy instruction that they received relevant to their subsequent clinical clerkship. Furthermore, we aimed to ascertain the degree of confidence felt by the students in their current knowledge of anatomy and in what ways factors such as the method of instruction, teaching styles of particular professors or location of their campus (hence access to a diversity of resources) affected this perception. Data analysis is ongoing and results will be presented.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".