Empirical evidence for symbiotic medical education: a comparative analysis of community and tertiary‐based programmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Flinders University has developed the Parallel Rural Community Curriculum (PRCC), a full year clinical curriculum based in rural general practice in South Australia. The examination performance of students on this course has been shown to be higher than that of their tertiary hospital-based peers. AIM: To compare the learning experiences of students in the community-based programme with those of students in the tertiary hospital in order to explain these improved academic outcomes. METHOD: A case study was undertaken, using an interpretivist perspective, with 3 structured interviews carried out over 2 academic years with each of 6 students from the community-based programme and 16 students from the tertiary hospital. The taped interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically using NUD*IST software. RESULTS: The community-based programme was successful in immersing the students in the clinical environment in a meaningful way. Four key themes were found in the data. These represented clear differences between the experiences of the community-based and hospital-based students. These differences involved: the value that students perceived they were given by supervising doctors and their patients; the extent to which the student's presence realised a synergy between the work of the university and the health service; opportunities for students to meet the aspirations of both the community and government policy, and opportunities for students to learn how professional expectations can mesh with their own personal values. CONCLUSION: This study has provided empirical evidence for the importance of the concept of symbiosis in understanding quality in medical education.
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 | 0.022 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".