Professionalism is a generic term: Practicing what we preach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article by van Luijk and his associates in this issue (van Luijk et al. 2010) documents an admirable effort by those responsible for the education of future members of the professions of medicine, dentistry, and veterinary science to recognize the conceptual unity of professionalism and to identify the common elements of professionalism which they share. Based on the identification of these common elements, they developed recommendations for the teaching and evaluation of professionalism in the 12 separate schools responsible for the education of practitioners. The project was initiated by the Association of Cooperating Universities in the Netherlands, and thus represents a voluntary effort to pool their knowledge and intellectual capital to improve professional education. While these standards have not been codified into regulatory procedures and compliance is not compulsory, the exercise represents an admirable attempt to better meet societal needs by producing de facto national standards in the Netherlands. It is apparent from the data presented that the schools have responded to address the issue in a concerted fashion.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".