Technologies of Exposure: Videoconferenced Distributed Medical Education as a Sociomaterial Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Videoconferencing-a network of buttons, screens, microphones, cameras, and speakers-is one way to ensure that undergraduate medical curricula are comparably delivered across distributed medical education (DME) sites, a common requirement for accreditation. However, few researchers have critically explored the role of videoconference technologies in day-to-day DME. The authors, therefore, conducted a three-year ethnographic study of a Canadian undergraduate DME program. METHOD: Drawing on 108 hours of observations, 33 interviews, and analysis of 65 documents-all collected at two campuses between January 2013 and February 2015-the authors explored the question, "What is revealed when we consider videoconferencing for DME as a sociomaterial practice?" RESULTS: The authors describe three interconnected ways that videoconference systems operate as unintended "technologies of exposure": visual, curricular, and auditory. Videoconferencing inadvertently exposes both mundane and extraordinary images and sounds, offering access to the informal, unintended, and even disavowed curriculum of everyday medical education. The authors conceptualize these exposures as sociomaterial practices, which add an additional layer of complexity for members of medical school communities. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis challenges the assumption that videoconferencing merely extends the bricks-and-mortar classroom. The authors discuss practical implications and recommend more critical consideration of the ways videoconferencing shifts the terrain of medical education. These findings point to a need for more critically oriented research exploring the ways DME technologies transform medical education, in both intended and unintended ways.
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 | 0.197 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".