Exploring the Hidden Curriculum of Global Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Universities are experiencing a hurried expansion of global health programs to accommodate interested trainees. A growing body of literature has addressed the practical and ethical considerations for singular global health experiences, and other articles have begun to tackle competencies for building global health curricula. However, standardized approaches to teaching global health are frequently absent, leaving learners to build their knowledge through a variety of avenues: formal coursework, informal reading, conferences, research, mentorship, and electives. The hidden curriculum, described as “processes, pressures and constraints which fall outside…the formal curriculum, and which are often unarticulated or unexplored”, has been identified as a powerful force in medical education, affecting impressions, decisions, career paths and morale of trainees. Because global health education is evolving rapidly, is it possible it contains its own uncharted hidden curriculum influencing learners in unknown ways? By investigating the contents of the hidden curricula, trainees have the opportunity to reframe and reconsider how it affects them, whether positively or negatively. But identifying and articulating hidden curricula or shared hidden perceptions is not an easy task. We offer four areas of hidden curriculum as opportunities for exploration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".