Bibliographic record
Abstract
We thank Dr. Reardon and colleagues for their comments. It is encouraging to note that our findings resonate across contexts and to hear about curriculum innovations that directly focus on the development of advocacy skills among medical trainees. There remains a lack of clarity about health advocacy and physicians, and there is still much work to be done on how to operationalize this concept in medical education.1 Efforts like those described by Dr. Reardon and colleagues will certainly expand our knowledge of this topic. Pursuant to our own research, we look forward to hearing about additional creative solutions for the development of trainees’ health advocate identity. We suggest that such education can be enhanced by leveraging upbringing, schooling, and formative experiences; providing exposure to social injustice; and facilitating trainees’ engagement in health advocacy work through mentors2 and systemic and organizational supports. Indeed, a systemic, collective approach to health advocacy was recently highlighted by Hubinette and colleagues.3 We concur that nurturing competencies for a collective approach to advocacy is necessary, and we look forward to seeing publications on the outcomes of such innovative curricular approaches. The opportunity to learn from this exchange has been invaluable. It is our hope to foster the growth of this community, whose aim is to support the development of advocacy knowledge and skills among physicians. We hope that our article will contribute to an improved understanding of how health advocacy becomes enacted among physicians who identify as health advocates so as to better prepare educators to teach and evaluate this ambiguous, yet necessary, concept. Marcus Law, MD, MBA, MEdAssociate professor of family medicine and director of foundations, MD Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, and director of medical education, Michael Garron Hospital and Toronto East Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; [email protected] Maria Mylopoulos, PhDAssistant professor, Faculty of Medicine, and scientist, Wilson Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Paula Veinot, MHScIndependent research consultant, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
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 | 0.013 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.049 | 0.071 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
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".