MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901986400 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002453

In Reply to Morris

2018· letter· en· W2901986400 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard L. Cruess, Sylvia R. Cruess, Yvonne Steinert

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Education and Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociocultural evolutionSocial learningLearning theoryEpistemologyPsychologySubject (documents)SociologyPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are pleased to reply to the letter from Dr. Morris concerning our article entitled “Medicine as a Community of Practice: Implications for Medical Education,”1 as it encourages a wider discourse on the fundamental nature of learning within the medical community that can only serve to enhance our understanding of this important subject. Her letter continues a debate between sociocultural and constructivist perspectives of learning that often overlap and complement each other.2 Dr. Morris favors a sociocultural approach, stating that “learning-as-participation” is preferable to “learning-as-acquisition,” referring to an article by Sfard3 proposing that both approaches represent different metaphors for learning that are not mutually exclusive. We would like to make two points in reply. First, in our article, we synthesize much of the literature that views communities of practice as a social learning theory that results from a constructivist approach to education. We do not refer to any potential conflict between differing theoretical approaches and, in fact, believe that communities of practice entail both learning-as-participation and learning-as-acquisition. Second, Dr. Morris seems to believe that the two approaches are incompatible, a point with which we disagree. We can turn to Sfard3 for support. She states, “The relative advantages of each of the two metaphors make it difficult to give up either of them: Each has something to offer that the other cannot provide.” In addition, we do not believe that the sociocultural approach focuses exclusively on learning-as-participation. Learning-as-acquisition is equally important. Our article acknowledges this and emphasizes the centrality of engagement and participation to learning within communities of practice. We continue to believe that the communities of practice theory is robust enough to encompass both approaches, either as metaphors or as foundational elements of the overall theory. As Packer and Goicoechea2 observe: “Whether one attaches the label ‘learning’ to the part or to the whole, acquiring knowledge and expertise always entails participation in relationship and community and transformation both of the person and of the social world.” Richard L. Cruess, MDProfessor of surgery and core faculty member, Centre for Medical Education of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; [email protected] Sylvia R. Cruess, MDProfessor of medicine and core faculty member, Centre for Medical Education of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Yvonne Steinert, PhDProfessor of family medicine and director, Centre for Medical Education of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.143
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicInnovative Education and Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207