MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048465014 · doi:10.1111/medu.12547

Seeking inclusion in an exclusive process: discourses of medical school student selection

2014· article· en· W2048465014 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Education and Admissions
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson CentreUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Selection (genetic algorithm)Medical schoolProcess (computing)Medical educationPsychologyMedicineSocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Calls to increase medical class representativeness to better reflect the diversity of society represent a growing international trend. There is an inherent tension between these calls and competitive student selection processes driven by academic achievement. How is this tension manifested? METHODS: Our three-phase interdisciplinary research programme focused on the discourses of excellence, equity and diversity in the medical school selection process, as conveyed by key stakeholders: (i) institutions and regulatory bodies (the websites of 17 medical schools and 15 policy documents from national regulatory bodies); (ii) admissions committee members (ACMs) (according to semi-structured interviews [n = 9]), and (iii) successful applicants (according to semi-structured interviews [n = 14]). The work is theoretically situated within the works of Foucault, Bourdieu and Bakhtin. The conceptual framework is supplemented by critical hermeneutics and the performance theories of Goffman. RESULTS: Academic excellence discourses consistently predominate over discourses calling for greater representativeness in medical classes. Policy addressing demographic representativeness in medicine may unwittingly contribute to the reproduction of historical patterns of exclusion of under-represented groups. In ACM selection practices, another discursive tension is exposed as the inherent privilege in the process is marked, challenging the ideal of medicine as a meritocracy. Applicants' representations of self in the 'performance' of interviewing demonstrate implicit recognition of the power inherent in the act of selection and are manifested in the use of explicit strategies to 'fit in'. CONCLUSIONS: How can this critical discourse analysis inform improved inclusiveness in student selection? Policymakers addressing diversity and equity issues in medical school admissions should explicitly recognise the power dynamics at play between the profession and marginalised groups. For greater inclusion and to avoid one authoritative definition of excellence, we suggest a transformative model of faculty development aimed at promoting multiple kinds of excellence. Through this multi-pronged approach, we call for the profession to courageously confront the cherished notion of the medical meritocracy in order to avoid unwanted aspects of elitism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.419 · 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