The Value of EMS Experience when Applying to Medical School?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study explores the value of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) experience for students applying to medical school. METHODS: Surveys were sent to 67 medical schools in the eastern United States and Canada. Using a five-point Likert scale, the survey asked the respondent to rate the amount of consideration given to Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) or paramedic experience when making admissions decisions (1 = very little to 5 = strong), and to describe the influence of that experience (1 = very negative to 5 = very positive). RESULTS: Usable responses were received from 21 schools. The median rating for the consideration given to EMS experience was "some consideration" for both EMT and paramedic experience, with 85.7% of respondents assigning that rating or higher. The median rating for the influence of that experience was "somewhat positive" for both EMT and paramedic experience. Only 14.3% of the returned surveys rated EMS experience as "neutral", and no respondent reported EMS experience as a "negative". CONCLUSION: EMS experience receives at least some consideration during the admissions process at most of the responding institutions in the United States and Canada. Experiences at either the EMT or Paramedic level are viewed similarly. None of the responding institutions viewed EMS experience negatively.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".