MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182466299 · doi:10.22605/rrh2664

Faculty analysis of distributed medical education in Northern Canadian Aboriginal communities

2014· article· en· W2182466299 on OpenAlexaffabout
Geoffrey M. Hudson, Marion Maar

Bibliographic record

VenueRural and Remote Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsNOSM University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumHealth carePublic relationsMedical educationCultural safetyObligationCommunity healthAccountabilityMedicineNursingPolitical sciencePublic healthSociologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: In 2005 the Northern Ontario School of Medicine (NOSM) in Canada implemented the world's first and (still) only mandatory Aboriginal community placement for all its medical students. ISSUES: The Aboriginal placement was created in part to address social accountability, defined as the obligation of medical schools to direct education, research and service activities towards addressing the priority health concerns of the community they serve. Concurrently, Aboriginal health policies have increasingly emphasized the need to involve Aboriginal people in healthcare planning and design health care that involves Aboriginal concepts of health and culturally safe care. Aboriginal delegates provided recommendations for the development of an Aboriginal health curriculum, which included the need for the medical school to acknowledge and respect Aboriginal history, health priorities and develop an Aboriginal community placement for all medical students. LESSONS LEARNED: To anticipate the challenges (e.g., distance, communication, technologies, student and cultural safety, pedagogical effectiveness/appropriateness) presented by a mandatory placement for first-year students in Aboriginal communities a pilot placement project was designed. The locations of the communities were carefully selected in order to assess a variety of challenges that might be encountered with rural and remote Aboriginal community placements. Pilot lessons included managing student expectations, which leaned towards a clinical rather than a community-based cultural placement focus. Areas for increased coordination and administrative support were identified, as well as the need for more extensive community level support. The students had an overall positive experience and learned about the realities of health care in the communities. Aboriginal community staff commented that the experience with the students was fulfilling and beneficial. It was also recognized that curriculum delivery methods required major adjustments and that the students required significant Aboriginal health curriculum in preparation to move forward from the pilot placement to a sustainable Aboriginal community curriculum. Two medical anthropologists, assisted and supported by an historian of medicine, identified and developed the core areas of academic knowledge required for students to begin their journey towards becoming culturally safe medical practitioners. Another important aspect of preparing students was a series of mandatory sessions led by the Aboriginal Affairs Office designed to complement academic sessions with practical information such as how to conduct oneself in the community, and current politics and treaties. A self-study project was developed to guide students through a process of increasing self-awareness of their own attitudes and perceptions about Aboriginal people and communities, and develop their competence to provide culturally safe medical care. New learning from several iterations of the placement was employed to fine-tune the curriculum, information technologies and supporting policies as the placement evolved into a cornerstone of the curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: Cultural immersion in Aboriginal communities is a way for medical students to gain an understanding of the needs and strengths of Aboriginal communities and learn what physicians might do to contribute effectively to Aboriginal health and wellbeing. Research is required to improve understanding about the aspects of this education experience that are most effective.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural and Remote HealthSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207