Free choice and career choice: clerkship electives in medical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Medical education experiences, particularly in clinical years, are reported determinants of career choice. Less is known about features of clinical education experiences including length, discipline, setting and choice, which may serve as landmarks in career choice decisions. This study's purpose was to explore the benefits of a free choice clerkship elective, and more specifically, its role in clarifying career choice. METHODS: Using framework and content analysis methodology, we analysed University of British Columbia, third-year medical student anonymised assignments regarding free choice and 2-week clerkship elective experiences. This clerkship was designed to provide students with clerkship experiences outside the conventional curricular model, while encouraging student choice of ambulatory and community settings. Assignment questions included: reasons for choosing elective; whether learning objectives were met; influence of elective on career choice; and unique elective experiences. Iterative review, coding, analysis and indexing of assignments were carried out to identify themes and corroborate findings. RESULTS: Emergent themes included: positive views of experience; transferable knowledge and skills; and influencer of future education and career choices. Although students were encouraged to choose clerkship experiences outside the conventional curricular model, most students chose the elective to clarify future career decisions. DISCUSSION: This qualitative descriptive study highlights the influence of highly regarded, free choice clerkship elective experiences in the career decision making process in medical education. Further examination of the details of clerkship elective experiences which influence career choice is recommended.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".