Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: “Are Regional Medical Campuses More Isolating for Minority Students?” was asked in a recent letter to the editor by Campbell and Rodríguez.1 Although the authors raise a thoughtful concern, we feel they are generalizing the potential for isolation at regional campuses without data to support their conclusion. Regional medical campuses (RMCs) are a diverse mix across North America. It is our perspective that RMCs are uniquely qualified to support all students, including those who traditionally have been underrepresented in medicine, and perhaps even exceed main campus outcomes in doing so. Of course, each case is different, so the outcomes depend on the specifics. Some students might be better nurtured at an RMC while others might find the main campus more accommodating. Typically, RMCs with their smaller size are more nimble than main campuses; often, RMC students are more closely connected to one another and can have closer ties to host communities. Students from RMCs commonly cite their increased clinical exposure as an advantage. Having a medical education campus is important to the communities that host RMCs, and the goodwill is often expressed through impressive systems of caring for the entire RMC family. In many ways, this is what can be attractive to underrepresented students. The University of Minnesota’s Duluth RMC is one such example. They have the enviable record of averaging 6 to 7 Native American students within a cohort of 60; in 2016 they had 11 Native American students in the entering class! In support of the Duluth RMC mission, 18% of the faculty is Native American. We have all experienced students transferring from RMCs back to the main campus, but we also know of numerous examples when students successfully moved in the opposite direction. Ultimately, RMCs come in many different shapes and sizes; there is no one-size-fits-all rule. The time is ripe to learn more about these nuances. In doing so, we think there are many treasures to be discovered. Lanita Carter, PhDDirector, Medical Education and Student Services, Huntsville Regional Campus, UAB School of Medicine, Huntsville, Alabama; [email protected]Gerry Cooper, EdDAssociate dean, Windsor Campus, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.Alan Johns, MD, MEdAssociate dean for medical education, Duluth Regional Campus, University of Minnesota Medical School, Duluth, Minnesota.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".