The Osler Fellowship: An Apprenticeship for Medical Educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: As part of a renewed focus on the physician as healer and professional at McGill University, faculty members were recruited to teach in a four-year, longitudinal doctoring course called Physician Apprenticeship. The goal of this study was to examine the impact of this experience and the accompanying faculty development program on the teachers, known as Osler Fellows. METHOD: An interviewer conducted semistructured interviews with 23 clinicians to understand their experiences as Osler Fellows and ascertain their views on how the workshop-based faculty development program, designed to mirror student experiences, differed from other professional development activities. RESULTS: The notion of connection and reconnection with the profession emerged as a major theme, consisting of four subthemes: the joy of working with students, the desire to make a difference, the process of reflection and renewal, and the building of community. Distinctive aspects of the faculty development program included the value of a common purpose, content that corresponded with core values, a sense of continuity, peer mentorship, and the emergence of a community of practice. Teachers also reported a sense of honor in being associated with Osler's name and a feeling of privilege in accompanying students on their journeys of discovery. CONCLUSIONS: Participating in the Osler Fellowship, an example of situated and work-based learning, resulted in a sense of connection with students, medical education, core professional values, and colleagues. As medical educators continue to develop longitudinal mentoring programs, the authors hope that these findings will offer insights on faculty development, recruitment, and renewal.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".