What is the value of global health electives during medical school?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether global health (GH) electives enhanced the development of medical students and to examine the influence on host communities. METHODS: A retrospective survey study was conducted with Queen's University undergraduate medical students who had participated in a GH elective. Participants rated the influence of their elective on the aspects of their professional and personal development and their perceived community impact on a scale of 0-5. RESULTS: The highest rated statements focused on the students' personal development and whether the elective provided a valuable learning experience (4.39 and 4.07, respectively). Students also reported a heightened level of awareness of social determinants of health (mean rating of 3.98). The statements with the lowest mean ratings involved students' perceptions of their impact on the communities. Overall, 73.5% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that GH electives are valuable to medical education. CONCLUSION: GH electives benefit the professional and personal development of medical students. Although students gain significantly from their experience, they are unable to assess the impact of their work on the community. Thus, there is a need to assess the effect from both the perspective of the students and of the community members.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".