An outsider's perspective on a provocative proposal: What would Flexner think?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This viewpoint commentary focuses on a proposal for integrated anatomy education in undergraduate college from Dr. Darda published in the Anatomical Sciences Education. Although the proposal is for college level education, the proposal echoes some ideas proposed a century ago by Abraham Flexner when he wrote his report titled "Medical Education in the United States and Canada." It begins with an acknowledgement of the author's status as an outsider. There have been numerous calls for change in basic science education, particularly in medical education. Interestingly, however, the monumental reforms of the "Flexner Report" were impelled largely from outside the specific discipline of medical education. The commentary discussion then moves to observations about the proposal for Integrative Anatomy and support for the proposal from both the Flexner Report and the 2009 report from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, "Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians." The essay considers the benefits of the research on the learning sciences that now inform our work in education; the influence of competency-based education that frees education from a lock-step approach of course completion to a student-focused integrative approach to learning; and the availability of online resources for anatomy education through repositories, such as MedEdPORTAL. The final observation is that the changes underway in education and in the sciences basic to medicine, in particular, are substantial and will require the dialogue that Dr. Darda is promoting with his provocative proposal.
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 | 0.029 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.049 | 0.062 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".