Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increasing number of students are opting to participate in global health electives during their medical training. Such international rotations have been demonstrated to positively affect student behaviour by evoking a deeper understanding of the impact of poverty, developing cultural awareness, and inspiring students to pursue careers caring for the underserved. However, while opportunities to receive this experience are becoming more abundant, important ethical issues have arisen surrounding these international placements. Such ethical issues include: potential conflicts of interest, participation above the trainee’s clinical level, power imbalance, and burden on the host institution. We therefore review the aforementioned ethical considerations and include practical approaches to address these issues. Moreover, we highlight the concept of the creation of ongoing partnerships between sending and host institutions to establish mutually beneficial relationships, further strengthening the partnership and promoting the exchange of ideas.
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 | 0.130 | 0.181 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".