Oath Taking at U.S. and Canadian Medical School Ceremonies: Historical Perspectives, Current Practices, and Future Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widespread use of oaths at medical commencements is a recent phenomenon of the late 20th century. While many are referred to as "Hippocratic," surveys have found that most oaths are modern, and the use of unique oaths has been rising. Oaths taken upon entry to medical school are even more recent, and their content has not been reported. The authors surveyed all Association of American Medical Colleges-member schools in the United States and Canada in 2015 and analyzed oath texts. Of 111 (70.2%) responses, full texts were submitted for 80 commencement and 72 white coat oaths. Previous studies have shown that while oaths before World War II were commonly variations on the original Hippocratic text and subsequently more often variations on the Geneva or Lasagna oath, now more than half of commencement ceremonies use an oath unique to that school or written by that class. With a wider range of oath texts, content elements are less uniformly shared, so that only three elements (respecting confidentiality, avoiding harm, and upholding the profession's integrity) are present in as many as 80% of oaths. There is less uniformity in the content of oaths upon entry to medical school. Consistently all of these oaths represent the relationship between individual physicians and individual patients, and only a minority express obligations to teach, advocate, prevent disease, or advance knowledge. They do not reflect obligations to ensure that systems operate safely, for example. None of the obligations in these oaths are unique to physicians.
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 | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".