"I really wanted to be able to contribute something": understanding health science student motivations to create meaningful global health experiences.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Global health is an area of increasing interest among health professionals, students and educators. This study aims to explore students' motivations and experiences with an undergraduate global health research program in low and middle-income countries and to assess student learning and areas for program improvement. METHODS: All students participating in the Global Health Research Program at the University of Calgary in the summer of 2009 were asked to participate in the study (n=11). In-depth interviews were conducted with students prior to departure and upon their return. Discourse analysis was used to identify interpretive repertoires and to determine how the use of repertoires improves our understanding of students' experiences. RESULTS: Prior to departure, students were highly motivated to "give back" to host communities. Upon return, students felt that their experience had been more about "building relationships" with others than individual contributions to hosts. DISCUSSION: Students' altruistic motivations dominated the discourse, and most students incorporated core concepts from a preparation course only after their international experience. Extensive preparation, supervision and follow-up support can mitigate many of the risks of short-term global health experiences while providing a safe opportunity for significant learning.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".