Sociological interpretations of professionalism
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Professionalism is a hot topic in medical education, yet there is debate about what professionalism actually is. The reason is that medical educators primarily frame professionalism as a list of characteristics or behaviours. However, many sociologists of the professions favour more explanatory theories that incorporate political, economic and social dimensions into understanding of the nature and function of professionalism. OBJECTIVES: This paper reviews a range of approaches used in the sociology of the professions to support the argument that medical education needs to reframe its priorities for research into, and the development of, professionalism in medical education. METHODS: The literature on the sociology of the professions was reviewed and summarised in relation to medical education. CONCLUSIONS: A focus on individual characteristics and behaviours alone is insufficient as a basis on which to build further understanding of professionalism and represents a shaky foundation for the development of educational programmes and tools. Contemporary sociological literature on professionalism should have greater prominence in this domain.
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.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it