Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tension over the place of the basic sciences has been a hallmark of medical education in the United States for more than 100 years. In 1910, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching issued Medical Education in the United States and Canada . Known as the Flexner report, it recommended devoting the first 2 of the 4 years of medical school to teaching the fundamentals of disciplines such as anatomy, chemistry, physiology, and pathology. This report served as the foundation for important improvements in medical education that lasted until the 1970s. Since then, U.S. medical schools have built on this foundation, with curricula in years 1 and 2 that increasingly aim to better integrate the science that underlies medicine with clinical practice. This path has proven successful, but there remains a lack of consensus on how much exposure to the basic sciences physicians in training need, with some even arguing that a background in science is not needed at all. For this and other reasons, my colleagues and I have recently completed an intensive 4-year study of U.S. medical education. We conclude that science will be critical for the future physician and that preparing physicians to incorporate science and scientific advances over their careers should be a central goal of medical education at all levels.
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 | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.016 |
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".