Workshops in Healing for Senior Medical Students: A 5 Year Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To provide a 5-year (2008-2012) overview and appraisal of a novel course for senior undergraduate medical students (Workshops in Healing) at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia within the context of a traditional 6-year curriculum. In these innovative workshops, 8-12 self-selected students per year participate over 6 hours in two sessions, several days apart. The sessions use artwork and other evocative images, poetry, music, statues and classic/contemporary literature to illustrate points of discussion relating to suffering, healing and the doctor-patient relationship. Methods: A written open-ended reflection was requested from 48 students in the final year of their 6-year medical course within a few weeks of the second workshop. The study employed an emergent qualitative design. Open coding involved repeated reading of the sections of the student’s feedback and a line-by-line analysis of this data. Selective coding was then used to link data together and develop the themes.Results: Students identified the following benefits from the workshops: 1) the opportunity to re-affirm their commitment to their chosen career path; 2) the value of listening to other students share their stories; 3) the importance of the timing of the Workshops to occur after exams; 4) the use of various mediums such as art, music and literature to present concepts of suffering and healing; and 5) the creation of a safe and confidential space.Conclusions: Students reported that the workshops gave them a renewed sense of drive and enthusiasm for their chosen career. They highlighted the importance of addressing an aspect of Medicine (healing) not covered in the traditional medical curriculum. For many students the workshops provided a broader understanding of the meaning of concepts such as suffering and healing, and helped them to rediscover a deeper meaning to Medicine, and their roles as healthcare professionals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".