MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911860197 · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2018.1536260

Supporting the development of a professional identity: General principles

2019· article· en· W2911860197 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvia R. Cruess, Richard L. Cruess, Yvonne Steinert

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Teacher · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)CurriculumProfessional developmentIdentity formationMedical educationSubject (documents)PedagogyEngineering ethicsPsychologySociologyMedicineSelf-conceptSocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While teaching medical professionalism has been an important aspect of medical education over the past two decades, the recent emergence of professional identity formation as an important concept has led to a reexamination of how best to ensure that medical graduates come to "think, act, and feel like a physician." If the recommendation that professional identity formation as an educational objective becomes a reality, curricular change to support this objective is required and the principles that guided programs designed to teach professionalism must be reexamined. It is proposed that the social learning theory communities of practice serve as the theoretical basis of the curricular revision as the theory is strongly linked to identity formation. Curricular changes that support professional identity formation include: the necessity to establish identity formation as an educational objective, include a cognitive base on the subject in the formal curriculum, to engage students in the development of their own identities, provide a welcoming community that facilitates their entry, and offer faculty development to ensure that all understand the educational objective and the means chosen to achieve it. Finally, there is a need to assist students as they chart progress towards becoming a professional.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.037
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.368 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations461
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical TeacherSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207