MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068770915 · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3181c40a5e

Health Advocacy Training: Now Is the Time to Develop Physician Leaders

2009· letter· en· W2068770915 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter J. Gill, Harbir Gill, Thomas J. Marrie

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumHealth careLegislatureMedical educationHealth policyMedicinePolitical sciencePublic healthHealth care reformPublic relationsPoliticsNursingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: Physicians have a societal responsibility to be health advocates and must act to positively influence public health and policy. But how can they achieve this without learning about the legislative process and policy reform? It is time for advocacy training to become more prominent in training future physicians, as the skills developed will enhance students' comprehension of how to deliver optimal patient care at the population level. Several regulatory physician organizations emphasize the importance of health advocacy training.1,2 At the medical school level, it is outlined in the AAMC's Medical School Objectives Project3 and in the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination objectives.4 Several U.S. medical schools have incorporated health advocacy training into their curricula. For example, Cha et al5 developed a one-month curriculum in health activism where students research, develop, and implement an advocacy plan. However, Canadian medical schools have been slow to adopt similar programs. To address this deficiency, the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary hosted the first Annual Alberta Political Action Day (PAD) to engage medical students in political advocacy and policy reform. The 40 students participating received training from accomplished lobbyists and physicians and implemented it by meeting with over 41 elected representatives. The two-day requirement of this initiative makes PAD a good approach for medical schools to use to start integrating health advocacy training into their already busy curricula. Proficient health advocates will become leaders in health care by becoming health administrators, joining lobbying groups, or assisting charitable organizations. The need for stronger physician leaders has never been greater. Clearly, it is time for medical schools to place greater emphasis on health advocacy training. Peter J. Gill Medical student, MD/PhD Program, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; [email protected]. Harbir S. Gill Medical student, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Thomas J. Marrie, MD Dean, Dalhousie Medical School, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0160.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.008

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207