Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of exposure to a new course addressing social and cultural issues in medicine on third-year medical students' awareness and understanding of how these issues affect their lives as students, the lives of patients, the work of physicians, and patient-physician interaction. The course, Physicians, Patients & Society (PPS) was introduced at the time the school was moving to a PBL curriculum. METHOD: In the late 1990s, a questionnaire was administered to third-year medical students at one Canadian medical school, prior to the curriculum change (Time 1). In-depth interviews were held with 25 of these students. A few years later, the same methods were repeated (Time 2) with a third-year class that had experienced the PPS course. RESULTS: The response rate for Time 1 was 59% (n = 72), for Time 2, 51% (n = 61). Students in Time 2 did not demonstrate increased awareness of social and cultural issues. Most failed to recognize, or even denied, the effects of race, class, gender, culture, and sexual orientation. Those who acknowledged the effect of social differences tended to deny social inequality, or at best recognized disadvantages experienced by Others, but not the accompanying privileges enjoyed by their own social group. CONCLUSIONS: In general, students concluded that learning about social and cultural issues made little or no difference when they did their clinical rotations. For a medical school to produce physicians who are sensitive to and competent working with diverse communities requires a balance between attention to "difference," attention to self, and attention to power relations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".