The Hidden Curriculum: Exposing the Unintended Lessons of Medical Education
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
INTRODUCTION: The hidden curriculum is a set of ethical, moral, and value-based teachings communicated to doctors-in-training, providing a basis for their future interactions with patients, peers, and colleagues. The aim of our study is to introduce the concept of the hidden curriculum to a cohort of third-year medical students and to subsequently evaluate their understanding. In particular, we sought to measure and benchmark the degree of hidden curriculum recognition within a Canadian medical education context. With the help of student feedback, we elicited ideas for future directions. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-four third-year medical students completing their obstetrics and gynaecology core clinical rotation attended a workshop on the hidden curriculum. Students completed two sets of evaluations; a voluntary anonymous pre- and post-workshop questionnaire evaluating their knowledge and opinions regarding the hidden curriculum, and a mandatory workshop evaluation. Answers to pre- and post-workshop questionnaires were compared using Mann-Whitney U test, and thematic analysis was used to code the students' comments to identify common themes. RESULTS: A standardized workshop on the hidden curriculum significantly improved students' understanding and highlighted the importance of the hidden curriculum. Voluntary student comments (N = 108) were categorized according to five themes: 1) Students who were not sensitized to the hidden curriculum (8; 7.4%); 2) students who were sensitized but unaware of the hidden curriculum (12; 11.1%); 3) students who were sensitized and aware of the hidden curriculum (34; 31.5%); 4) comments on teaching methodologies/environment (43; 39.8%); and 5) suggestions for enhancement (11; 10.2%). CONCLUSIONS: A simple, cost-effective intervention, such as a workshop, can effectively assess and address the hidden curriculum. Many students are highly sensitized to and are aware of the positive and negative effects of role modeling on their development. The students are calling for similar interventions to be directed at the postgraduate and faculty level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it