USING COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH PROJECT AS VENUE TO TRAIN PROFESSIONALISM: THE CYBERJAYA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES STUDENTS' EXPERIENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this paper is to examine medical students' views on the usefulness of a community project as a venue to train professionalism. Methods: Medical students at Cyberjaya University College of Medical Sciences (CUCMS) were surveyed following psychiatry community projects organized during year 4 undergraduate attachments in psychiatry. Results: A total of 176 students returned the survey forms. A majority of medical students thought that the psychiatry community project promotes teamwork and leadership skills. About a quarter thought that it helped foster their communication ability and encouraged them to be more reflective in their daily lives. These findings were translated into the potential of the community project to train collaborative and managerial affective domain learning outcomes of the university. Conclusions: The findings indicate that psychiatry community project or similar programmes may be useful tools to train several elements of medical professionalism. Future research however should utilise specific measurements to confirm this finding. ASEAN Journal of Psychiatry, Vol.13(1): January - June 2012: XX XX
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".