MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Caring for a common future: medical schools' social accountability

2006· review· en· W1968804217 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Woollard

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityEthosMandatePublic relationsContext (archaeology)Social accountingTransformative learningRhetoricPolitical scienceSocial responsibilitySociologyPublic administrationPedagogyLawManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ORIGINS AND CONTEXT: The concept of 'the social accountability of medical schools' is moving from the peripheral preoccupation of a few to a more central concern of medical schools themselves. Born of concerns about the professionalism and relevance of both the institutions and their graduates, it is seen increasingly as an urgent call to focus the considerable social resources vested in academic health science institutions on addressing the priority health concerns of the societies they serve. For a profession embedded in an ethos of service, this would seem an obvious transition. However, as with any movement towards transformative change, it runs the risk of being more mantra and rhetoric than mandate and responsibility. NEEDED RESPONSE: Proceeding from the assumption that good intentions alone are not enough, this paper seeks to outline the historical development and some current expression of the concept throughout the world. The sadly divergent wealth and health status of modern societies calls for very different actions by medical schools across the spectrum from the least endowed to the wealthiest of schools. In a profession claiming centuries of cohesive commitment to the welfare of others, it is increasingly urgent that the current generation of medical educators converge on a relevant set of principles and coherent activities. TOOLS FOR THE TASK: While recognising that they are closely intertwined, the paper outlines the difference between the social accountability of the institutions themselves and the social accountability of the graduates they produce. It outlines both individual examples and the international initiatives that are fostering and facilitating institutional collaborations to bring both progress and optimism to this daunting task. It provides connections to practical resources for those who are committed to that task. Other papers in this series add further practical insights into the central role that medical educators must play if we are to fulfil the responsibilities we carry with the privilege of our profession.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.069
Scholarly communication0.0150.010
Open science0.0010.021
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.418 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations182
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207