Global Health in Canadian Medical Education: Current Practices and Opportunities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Globalization is altering health and health care. At the same time, prospective and current medical students are increasingly requesting global health training and creating opportunities when these are not provided by medical schools. To understand the type and amount of global health activities provided in Canadian medical schools, the authors undertook a survey of global health educational opportunities available at all 17 medical schools during the 2005-2006 academic year. METHOD: Using a structured questionnaire, information was collected from deans' offices, institutional representatives, faculty, students, and medical school Web sites. RESULTS: All 17 medical schools participated. Canadian medical schools vary widely in their approach to global health education, ranging from neither required nor elective courses in global health to well-developed, two-year electives that include didactic and overseas training. There is no consensus on the educational content covered, the year in which global health issues are taught, whether materials should be elective or required, or how much training is needed. Of the 16 Canadian medical schools that allow students to participate in international electives, 44% allow these electives to occur without clear faculty oversight or input. CONCLUSIONS: Despite both the strong, growing demand from medical students and the changing societal forces that call for better global health training, Canadian medical school curricula are not well positioned to address these needs. Improving global health opportunities in Canadian medical school curricula will likely require national leadership from governing academic bodies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it