Teaching in a new key: Effects of a co-taught seminar on medical students' attitudes toward schizophrenia.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to examine the effect of a consumer and professional co-taught seminar on recovery in persons with schizophrenia, fourth year medical students completed attitudinal surveys at the beginning and end of their 7-week rotation in psychiatry. Analysis of results comparing average change in scores in a group exposed to the seminar (n = 24) and a control group not exposed (n = 10), shows measurable change in some survey items indicative of attitudinal change. Such a teaching format may provide a broader perspective on the long term issues for persons with schizophrenia. This can serve to counter the limitations of the brief exposure students receive to hospitalized patients in the most debilitating phase of the illness. The co-teaching model may provide a new and balanced perspective for medical students, facilitating a more holistic understanding of patients and countering a possible overemphasis on diagnosis. Such a format could have application in teaching psychiatric residents, nurses, and other health 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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it