The impact on students of adverse experiences during medical school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the consequences for, and coping method used by, medical students who experienced adverse experiences during their training. A nationwide questionnaire based census of all current medical students in New Zealand. The response rate was 83% (1384/1660). Two-thirds of students had at least one adverse experience, with humiliation being the most common and having the greatest adverse impact. Unwanted sexual advances, unfair treatment on the basis of gender or race had a lesser impact for most students. Most students took several hours or several days to get over an adverse episode and most commonly they then avoided that person or department. Around one half sought help. Only one-quarter felt it motivated their learning while one-sixth felt it made them consider leaving medical school. The most common perpetrators were senior doctors or nurses. Unwanted sexual advances were most common from other students or from patients. Humiliation is the experience that affected students the most and had a significant adverse effect on learning. There is a disturbing rate of unacceptable practice within medical schools, not all of which is from doctors.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".