MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997445559 · doi:10.1080/10401334.2013.801774

Exploring the Benefits of an Optional Theatre Module on Medical Student Well-Being

2013· article· en· W1997445559 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alim Nagji, Pamela Brett-MacLean, Lorraine Breault

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching and Learning in Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceMathematics educationPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Medical students struggle with varied stressors and developing adequate coping mechanisms is essential. PURPOSE: This study examined medical student perceptions of the well-being impact of a theatre-based course. METHODS: Eighteen 1st-year medical students at the University of Alberta participated in 3 focus groups following the conclusion of a theatre-based module that was piloted in the first quarter of 2010. A semistructured protocol was used to guide the focus groups, which were audiotaped and transcribed. Along with general feedback, impact on personal development and student well-being were discussed. Thematic aspects of these discussions were qualitatively analyzed. FINDINGS: During the focus groups, medical students identified three aspects of the theatre-based module that contributed to their sense of overall well-being. These included (a) fun/relaxation, (b) enhanced relationships with each other, and (c) personal growth/resilience. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that participating in an optional theatre module can enhance medical student well-being. Our analysis suggests the need to consider novel, humanities-based curriculum offerings in relation to personal development and well- being.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTeaching and Learning in MedicineSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207