Effect of the Bologna bachelor degree on considerations of medical students to interrupt or terminate their medical training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The bachelor-master system potentially enables medical students to stop or temporary interrupt their training after obtaining a bachelor degree. A survey at the time of introduction of this two-cycle model in Dutch medical education showed little interest among students in these possibilities. AIMS: To investigate students' considerations to stop or pause now that this model is well established. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to 314 second year and 348 third year bachelor students and 256 first year master students at University Medical Center Utrecht. RESULTS: Response rates were 33.4% for the second year and 42.0% for the third year bachelor students and 48.8% for the master students. Of all these students, one to three percent seriously considered a permanent stop. Of the bachelor students, about one quarter seriously considered a temporary stop after finishing the bachelor program. Of the master students, one in seven indicated that they did take a break at that opportunity. CONCLUSIONS: Awarding the bachelor degree does not particularly encourage students to discontinue their medical study. Our results are comparable to the results of the survey at the time of the introduction of the bachelor-master system, which supports our previous conclusion.
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 | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".