Tracking Clerkship Experience: Just What Do Clinical Clerks See on an Elder Care Rotation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Schulich School of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, Canada, has created a mandatory clerkship in Elder Care that consists of small group seminars, clinical experiences, and an Elder Care manual. This article describes the use of a paper-based log to track students' clinical encounters to determine whether the Elder Care clerkship offers students the opportunity for a broad range of clinical experiences to address curriculum objectives. Using a paper-based log that was completed after each clinical encounter, students recorded information including the reason for assessment, tests completed, care recommendations, and personal reflections. Each of 70 students completed an average of 5.5 logs. Cognitive/psychiatric, medical, functional, and social problems were reported in more than 83% of the logs. Almost all students saw at least one patient with cognitive decline and one with depressive symptoms. Only six students reported seeing a patient with delirium. Students were able to think reflectively on their experiences. In matching the clerkship objectives to the learning modality(ies) in which they were addressed, it was found that knowledge-related objectives were supported primarily by seminars and manual content. Skills-related objectives were supported primarily by clinical experiences. The clinical experience logs used in this study provided evidence that, in the Elder Care clerkship, for the most part, students are seeing what we think they should be seeing. Study results have informed the revision of the logs, which will be an ongoing method of tracking objectives and students' reflections and ensuring continuous quality improvement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".