Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Qualitative exploration of the experience of family practice residents in using semistructured case-based reflection exercises as a learning medium. DESIGN: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews. SETTING: Memorial University's Family Medicine Residency Program in St John's, Newfoundland. PARTICIPANTS: Graduates of the residency program who had taken part ina pilot project that involved completion of case-based reflection exercises as a medium for enhancing learning. METHOD: In-depth interviews were conducted with graduates who had used the reflection exercises during their postgraduate training. All participants were in active practice. All of the audiotaped interviews were transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis continued until saturation was reached. MAIN FINDINGS Eight interviews were conducted that included 5 women and 3 men. Three themes emerged from the data analysis: effect on the learning process, effect on the patient-doctor relationship, and effect on the learner. CONCLUSION: The experience of using the reflection exercises appeared to affect how family practice residents learned. Three major themes emerged: the reflection exercises as a continuing education process offered participants a strategy for future learning in practice; the exercises offered a different perspective on the patient-doctor interaction that had doctors looking for cues to deeper meaning; and the exercises engaged the learners in a reflective process that revealed qualities about themselves that gave them personal insight. These reflective strategies have relevance for all physicians in their attempts to incorporate new knowledge and understanding into their practices. Similar dimensions are articulated in the educational literature, and this study supports the usefulness of case-based reflection as a catalyst in the education of family physicians.
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 | 0.016 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".