How a Professional Identity is Forged in the Anatomy Lab for Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is recognized that the development of a professional identity is significantly influenced by experiences in academic and clinical settings, and through certain rites of passage, such as, learning from cadavers. Little is known, however, about how the experiences in the cadaver lab actively shape the development of the Professional. To understand the impact the experiences in the anatomy lab have on students' professional identity formation, first year students were surveyed before and their first anatomy session. Four months after commencing their anatomy sessions, students completed another survey and focus groups were conducted. In both the survey and focus groups, students were asked to explore their perceptions of themselves as students, physicians in training, idealized physicians, and the congruency between values held and behaviors displayed. When asked to rank their own development and the perception of their peers in the anatomy lab, students positioned themselves on the pathway towards the medical professional. They ranked those students coping best with the experience as closest to the qualities of a physician they admire. The emphasis on professionalism in the course had a positive impact on their experience. While cadavers have historically been used to teach anatomy, the findings from this study indicate that the same anatomy labs significantly contribute to the formation of the professional. As medical curricula across the world continue to evolve, the goal should be to preserve the rich experience gained by cadaver dissection.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".