Understanding Student Experiences in a Near-Peer Resident Shadowing Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction . The preparation of medical students for clerkship has been criticized, both in terms of students’ ability to understand their new role as clinical trainees and in their ability to carry out that role. To begin to address this gap, this paper reports the experiences of students in a shadowing program aimed at enhancing the preparedness of medical students for clinical training. The study examined a novel program, the Resident-Medical Student Shadowing Program, in which first-year medical students at the University of Alberta shadowed a first-year resident during clinical duties over the course of eight months. Methods . A study was conducted to assess the experiences of 83 first-year medical student participants who shadowed a first-year resident intermittently for one year. Student and resident participants’ experiences were explored using semistructured interviews. Results . Students and residents experiences indicate that participation increased students’ understanding of the clinical environment and their role within it and introduced them to skills and knowledge needed to perform that role. Students reported that a close relationship with their resident enhanced their learning experience. Conclusion . This study demonstrates that a low-cost program in which first-year students shadow residents may be a useful tool for helping prepare students for clerkship.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".