The many and conflicting histories of medical education in Canada and the USA: an introduction to the paradigm wars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical education research is a maturing field of inquiry that derives theoretical perspectives from many domains. Yet while such theoretical diversity holds the promise of rich paradigmatic writing and debate, too often medical education researchers do not place their work in a historical or cultural context, giving the impression that they have somehow unearthed universal 'truths' about medical education. METHODS: This paper introduces some of the key 'histories' of medical education from the contexts of Anglophone Canada and the USA following a review of major works in the history of medical education. RESULTS: There are many and conflicting histories of medical education in North America that can be classified according to different socio-historical paradigms. CONCLUSIONS: To avoid the error of over-generalisation, a much greater effort must be made to include historical, sociological, economic and other social science perspectives in the design, interpretation and application of medical education research.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".