Who should choose a rural LIC: A qualitative study of perceptions of students who have completed a rural longitudinal integrated clerkship
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evidence from many longitudinal integrated clerkships (LICs) has shown that students in LICs do as well as those in rotation-based clerkships (RBCs). Researchers now are turning to questions of how and why LICs work and for whom. This study explores the question: "Who should choose the University of Alberta's Rural LIC?" METHODS: Reflective conversations were held with former LIC students at the end of their fourth year of the MD program. The 5-year study began in a hermeneutic phenomenological frame evolving to an iterative process of collection and analysis in the tradition of grounded theory. RESULTS: Students' perceptions coalesced around four themes: (1) approach to learning, (2) personality, (3) attitudes and (4) career goals. The ability to adapt one's own structure for learning, a preference for learning by doing and self-directedness were all important factors. CONCLUSION: Prospective students should be flexible, adaptable, comfortable being uncomfortable, adventuresome and embrace both the program and rural community life in order to benefit maximally from the experience. Rural LICs can be a choice for anyone, but students who have completed a rural LIC identify reasons why it may or may not be the best choice for everyone.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it