Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arguably, the most pivotal period in medical education in this country was during the early 20th century when a nonphysician was given the task to objectively evaluate medical education in America. Abraham Flexner, an educator who worked at the Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching, provided a critical analysis of an educational system in medicine that had no regulatory body or structured curriculum. This landmark report on Medical Education in the United States and Canada was unveiled in 1910. 1-3 The “Flexner Report,” as it is commonly called, highlighted that a large percentage of medical schools were strictly proprietary. Very few had any type of standards or required prerequisites prior to matriculation. In fact, most medical schools were faculty owned, with tuition funding most of the faculty salaries. The majorityofthemedicalschoolsduringthis period had no hospital or university affiliation. It was reported that some of the graduates from these schools never dissected a cadaver and often did not see a singlepatient.Theshockingconclusionof theFlexnerReportwasthatmorethan120 of the 150+ operating medical schools should be closed. The report generated a quick response from the American MedicalAssociation’sCouncilonMedicalEducation, which initiated the following ratingsystem:classA,fullysatisfactory;class B, redeemable; and class C, complete reorganization needed. With most of the states denying licensure to new graduates of class C schools, it resulted in almost immediate closure of the schools in this category. If they did not close outright,theclassBschoolsoftenmergedwith other schools to survive. As predicted, more than 100 medical schools eventually closed. An unexpected consequence of the Flexner Report was the increase in philanthropic funds to the medical schoolswithalmosthalfofthefundsgiven toallcausesbeingdirectedtoundergraduate medical education. Approximately $154 million (excluding matching funds) were poured into medical schools. Fortunately,medicalschoolstodayare
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 | 0.025 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.045 |
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".