The CARE Model of Social Accountability: Promoting Cultural Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the 10th anniversary of Health Canada and the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada's publication in 2001 of Social Accountability: A Vision for Canadian Medical Schools, the authors review the progress at one Canadian medical school, the College of Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan, in developing a culture of social accountability. They review the changes that have made the medical school more socially accountable and the steps taken to make those changes possible. In response to calls for socially accountable medical schools, the College of Medicine created a Social Accountability Committee to oversee the integration of these principles into the college. The committee developed the CARE model (Clinical activity, Advocacy, Research, Education and training) as a guiding tool for social accountability initiatives toward priority health concerns and as a means of evaluation. Diverse faculty and student committees have emerged as a result and have had far-reaching impacts on the college and communities: from changes in curricula and admissions to community programming and international educational experiences. Although a systematic assessment of the CARE model is needed, early evidence shows that the most significant effects can be found in the cultural shift in the college, most notably among students. The CARE model may serve as an important example for other educational institutions in the development of health practitioners and research that is responsive to the needs of their communities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".