Peace‐building through an international child health elective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context and setting The International Child Health Elective is a multidisciplinary programme involving the collaboration of students and faculty from Canada and the Middle East. Each year, the programme subtheme focuses on a particular health issue according to the following principles: Reflects a global child health issue Allows for a focused depth of study Provides a multidisciplinary approach, exploring determinants of health, medical and psychosocial issues, and roles of all health-care providers Enhances health sciences curricula at participating universities Addresses community needs through active participation During the month-long elective, students from Canadian, Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian medical schools come together through an international non-government organisation in Canada. Student selection is based on their academic interests in the subtheme and their willingness to work collaboratively with students from other cultures and academic disciplines. Why the idea was necessary The elective programme is unique among educational opportunities offered to health-care students. As a project developed by students for students, it is distinctively positioned to respond to student academic interests. The community service component of the curriculum allows participants to ground their academic learning with hands-on experience in an applied setting. The multidisciplinary academic and social programming provides rare opportunities for Middle Eastern and Canadian students to work together on common health goals, while nurturing a spirit of peace, co-operation and mutual understanding. This approach allows participants to develop practical interdisciplinary collaborative skills essential to understanding and addressing complex global health problems. What was done The 2003 and 2004 programmes focused on paediatric oncology and congenital hearing loss, respectively. The 4-week curriculum consisted of presentations from academic and community leaders, problem-based learning cases, discussion groups and experiential learning in the community. Participants took initiative in researching important health literature collaboratively and presenting these findings to the programme stakeholders. The programme also included team-building activities to encourage the development of personal and professional relationships among the students. Each programme was evaluated using qualitative research methods, which have contributed towards improving future curricula. Evaluation of the results and impact An important academic outcome related by participants was an improved understanding of diverse child health issues. Moreover, the students evaluated the multidisciplinary focus, the community service component and the opportunity for cross-cultural co-operation as highlights of the programme. The experience fostered strong relationships between participants from communities affected by conflict; these connections have persisted and encouraged the development of new health for peace initiatives. The unique experience of transcending political boundaries to explore an important health issue is best explained by a participant of the 2004 programme on congenital hearing loss: ‘What we learned most of all was about our own “deafness” and how we can better listen to each other and co-operate to address common medical problems in the Middle East’.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".