MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2934495935 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002726

Fostering Student–Faculty Partnerships for Continuous Curricular Improvement in Undergraduate Medical Education

2019· article· en· W2934495935 on OpenAlex
Kirstin W. Scott, Dana G. Callahan, Jie Jane Chen, Marissa H. Lynn, David J. Coté, Anna M. Morenz, Josephine Fisher, Varnel L. Antoine, Elizabeth Lemoine, Shaunak K. Bakshi, Jessie Stuart, Edward M. Hundert, Bernard S. Chang, Holly C. Gooding

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Practises and Engagement
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumGeneral partnershipMedical educationGeneralizability theoryStudent engagementFaculty developmentProgram evaluationPsychologyMedicinePedagogyProfessional developmentPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PROBLEM: A number of medical schools have used curricular reform as an opportunity to formalize student involvement in medical education, but there are few published assessments of these programs. Formal evaluation of a program's acceptability and use is essential for determining its potential for sustainability and generalizability. APPROACH: Harvard Medical School's Education Representatives (Ed Reps) program was created in 2015 to launch alongside a new curriculum. The program aimed to foster partnerships between faculty and students for continuous and real-time curricular improvement. Ed Reps, course directors, and core faculty met regularly to convey bidirectional feedback to optimize the learning environment in real time. OUTCOMES: A survey to assess the program's impact was sent to students and faculty. The majority of students (202/222; 91.0%) reported Ed Reps had a positive impact on the curriculum. Among faculty, 35/37 (94.6%) reported making changes to their courses as a result of Ed Reps feedback, and 34/37 (91.9%) agreed the program had a positive impact on the learning environment. Qualitative feedback from students and faculty demonstrated a change in school culture, reflecting the primary goals of partnership and continuous quality improvement (CQI). NEXT STEPS: This student-faculty partnership demonstrated high rates of awareness, use, and satisfaction among faculty and students, suggesting its potential for local sustainability and implementation at other schools seeking to formalize student engagement in CQI. Next steps include ensuring the feedback provided is representative of the student body and identifying new areas for student CQI input as the curriculum becomes more established.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.338 · 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