White Coats Meet Grey Power: Students and Seniors Respond to an “Intergenerational Gala”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research suggests that nonclinical interactions with older people may enhance medical students' traditionally poor attitudes toward this patient group. Although extensive literature has reported on student attitudes, seniors' perspectives of their relationships with younger healthcare professionals (HCPs) are generally unknown. This study explores students' and seniors' perceptions of aging and the influence of these perceptions on medical practice before and after a recreational, intergenerational event. In March 2006, the Schulich Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of Western Ontario held its second annual "Intergenerational Gala." Approximately 150 seniors and students were invited to complete a brief pre- and postevent questionnaire exploring attitudes toward aging, care of older people, and HCP training. After the event, approximately 60% of students did not feel that their curriculum contained adequate geriatrics content, and more than one-third of seniors did not feel that today's HCPs are adequately trained to address the healthcare needs of older people. Content analysis indicated strongly positive postevent perceptions of the gala but also considerable divergences between students' and seniors' responses to "To me, growing older means. ..." Seniors also offered advice to young HCPs encouraging listening, patience, and not using "age" as a medical diagnosis. The second Intergenerational Gala explored similarities and differences between how seniors and students view aging. Although significant changes in attitudes were not observed, qualitative responses from both groups suggest that similar events hold promise as part of a concerted curricular strategy to encourage and improve intergenerational relations in the context of medical practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".