The Potential Impact of Morality on Medical Student Global Health Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in global health experiences (GHEs) has surged in the last decade throughout undergraduate medical education. Positive clinical and cultural learning impacts are well described; however, the moral and motivational typology of the globally minded medical student are yet to be elucidated. We surveyed 85 US medical students, 41 who participated in a GHE during medical school and 44 who did not, to examine their sense of moral association with local community, Americans, and all of humanity. Measures of empathy and spirituality were also administered, as well as a qualitative prompt to elicit reasons for participating, or not, in a GHE. The results of logic regression analysis suggest that the strongest predictors of GHE participation are strong, geographically non-specific identification with ‘all humanity’ [OR=1.31, P<0.01, 95% CI, 1.07–1.59], as well as participation in an abroad experience prior to medical school [OR 141, P<0.01, 95% CI, 10.1–1960]. While respondent groups did not differ significantly in their association with local community, incremental increase in identification with ‘Americans’ decreased likelihood of IME participation by 20% [P=0.02, 95% CI, 0.67–0.96]. No significant effect was found between participant groups in response to empathy or spirituality scales. This pilot study demonstrates that a global regard for ‘all humanity’ may motivate GHE participation while a strong national association diminishes its likelihood.
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 | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".