Political Action Day: A Student-Led Initiative to Increase Health Advocacy Training Among Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Health advocacy is a critical aspect of the competent physician's role. It is identified as a core competency by several national physician regulatory organizations, yet few formal training programs exist. We developed an initiative to teach medical students health advocacy skills.Methods: At Political Action Day, students from Alberta medical schools lobbied the provincial government. A day of training seminars preceded Political Action Day that focused on teaching health advocacy and communication strategies. The following day, medical students met with elected representatives at the Legislative Assembly. An entry and exit survey was administered to students.Results: On October 26-27th, 2008, 40 students met with 38/83 (46%) elected representatives including the Minister of Health and Wellness. Feedback from students and politicians suggests the event was effective in teaching advocacy skills. This initiative inspired students to be politically active in the future.Conclusions: Political Action Day helps fulfill the health advocacy competency objectives, and requires minimal curriculum time and resources for integration. It is an effective tool to begin teaching advocacy, and should be further expanded and replicated at other Canadian medical schools.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".