Enhancing medical students’ conceptions of the CanMEDS Health Advocate Role through international service-learning and critical reflection: A phenomenological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical students are expressing increasing interest in international experiences in low-income countries where there are pronounced inequities in health and socio-economic development. AIM: We carried out a detailed exploration of the international service-learning (ISL) experience of three medical students and the value of critical reflection as a pedagogical approach to enhance medical students' conceptions of the Canadian Medical Education Directions for Specialists (CanMEDS) Health Advocate Role. METHOD: A phenomenological approach enabled us to study in considerable depth the students' experience from their perspective. Students kept reflective journals and wrote essays including detailed accounts of their experiences. The content of the students' journals and essays was analyzed using the critical incident technique. RESULTS: Students noted an increasingly meaningful sense of what it means to be vulnerable and marginalized, a heightened level of awareness of the social determinants of health and the related importance of community engagement, and a deeper appreciation of the health advocate role and key concepts embedded within it. CONCLUSION: This in-depth phenomenological study focused on the detailed experiences of three students from whom we learned that social justice-oriented approaches to service-learning, coupled with critical reflection, provide potentially viable pedagogical approaches for learning the health advocate role. How this experience will affect the students' future medical practice is yet unknown.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".