Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this commentary, the author discusses medical education reform before Abraham Flexner's 1910 report, Medical Education in the United States and Canada, the reforms for which Flexner campaigned, and the report's impact on the future of the discipline. To honor Flexner's contributions to medical education, the author then exposes the myths that surround Flexner's ideals and accomplishments 100 years later. The author argues that Flexner's achievement lies in how he transformed medical education reform into a broad social movement, aligning it with John Dewey's popular “progressive education” movement, and in how Flexner succeeded in establishing the university model as the standard for all medical schools. The author also argues that Flexner, at the most fundamental level, stood for academic excellence and public service in medical education. This dedication, the author argues, is Flexner's greatest legacy and a commitment that should continue to shape the future of the discipline.
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 | 0.014 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.052 | 0.045 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".