MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093490058 · doi:10.1111/medu.12429

Compassionate care? A critical discourse analysis of accreditation standards

2014· article· en· W2093490058 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cynthia Whitehead, Ayelet Kuper, Risa Freeman, Batya Grundland, Fiona Webster

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompassionAccreditationUnintended consequencesContext (archaeology)Value (mathematics)PsychologyDiscourse analysisPower (physics)SociologyMedical educationNursingMedicinePolitical scienceLinguisticsLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: We rely upon formal accreditation and curricular standards to articulate the priorities of professional training. The language used in standards affords value to certain constructs and makes others less apparent. Leveraging standards can be a useful way for educators to incorporate certain elements into training. This research was designed to look for ways to embed the teaching and practice of compassionate care into Canadian family medicine residency training. METHODS: We conducted a Foucauldian critical discourse analysis of compassionate care in recent formal family medicine residency training documents. Critical discourse analysis is premised on the notion that language is connected to practices and to what is accorded value and power. We assembled an archive of texts and examined them to analyse how compassionate care is constructed, how notions of compassionate care relate to other key ideas in the texts, and the implications of these framings. RESULTS: There were very few words, metaphors or statements that related to concepts of compassionate care in our archive. Even potential proxies, notably the doctor-patient relationship and patient-centred care, were not primarily depicted in ways that linked them to ideas of compassion or caring. There was a reduction in language related to compassionate care in the 2013 standards compared with the standards published in 2006. CONCLUSIONS: Our research revealed negative findings and a relative absence of the construct of compassionate care in our archival documents. This work demonstrates how a shift in curricular focus can have the unintended consequence of making values that are taken for granted less visible. Given that standards shape training, we must pay attention not only to what we include, but also to what we leave out of formal documents. We risk losing important professional values from training programmes if they are not explicitly highlighted in our standards.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0200.050
Scholarly communication0.0150.013
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.402 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations63
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207