Bibliographic record
Abstract
We thank Dr. Pivalizza and colleagues for their interest in our article and for providing U.S. experiences in contrast to the Canadian context. Oversight of Canadian postgraduate education comes from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the Canadian College of Family Physicians, while undergraduate training is regulated by the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada. In contrast to the United States, while all three bodies include competency in health advocacy and promotion as a key foundational principle,1–3 and in proposed visions for the future of medical education,4 there is no specific mandate to include training on legislative and regulatory issues at either the undergraduate or postgraduate level. Our call to action highlighted the need to include training on a variety of advocacy strategies within Canadian medical education, of which objectives specific to legislative and regulatory considerations could be one part. This inclusion would certainly see some of the barriers highlighted by Dr. Pivalizza and colleagues arise in academic settings, which would require educators to address key concerns in a manner that respects and seeks consensus between competing interests, employing formal processes to incorporate internal and external stakeholders’ input into curriculum development. Advocacy training must also carefully tread the line between developing learners’ skills and calling them to action. Too often, teaching of the latter nature has drawn criticism and opposition against previous curricular inclusion efforts. Advocacy training must therefore avoid imposing viewpoints on trainees and instead focus on developing the skills necessary to assess and engage in advocacy consistent with trainees’ own values and opinions, should they so desire. Regardless of how curricular development proceeds, the importance of formal advocacy training in contemporary medical education cannot be ignored. As the discourse on health and health care becomes increasingly contentious and crowded with myriad voices, it is untenable for physicians to remain passive observers without developing needed skills in this arena. Medical trainees and physicians must ensure that their experiences and evidence are part of discussions that shape the systems and communities that impact our patients’ health and well-being. Thus, despite different national contexts, an ongoing transborder dialogue between Canadian and U.S. educators is critical towards creating a shared vision for advocacy training and social accountability in medical education. Tahara D. Bhate, MD, MHSc Resident physician, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Lawrence C. Loh, MD, MPH Associate medical officer of health, Peel Public Health, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, adjunct professor, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, clinical lecturer, Department of Family Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and director of programs, The 53rd Week Ltd., Brooklyn, New York; [email protected]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.045 | 0.068 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".