Ethical globalization? Decolonizing theoretical perspectives for internationalization in Canadian medical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Internationalization is a process being undertaken at institutions of post-secondary education worldwide in response to globalization. The resulting imperatives for medical education include re-thinking Canadian positionality within uneven, problematic Global North-South relations. Members of the medical education community are in need of training and tools to navigate this complex situation. METHODS: Using a decolonial theoretical perspective, a literature review was conducted and framed with three ethical questions posed to stimulate collective conversations about internationalization among all members of the health professions education community in Canada. RESULTS: This study identifies analytical gaps in discussions on the role of medical education in the context of colonial, neoliberal, unjust Global North-South relations. The results point to the need for deeper examination of medical curricula for problematic representations and theorization of inequities and racialization. They also suggest that practices for International Medical Electives and the involvement of International Medical Graduates should be evaluated in light of the ethical concerns identified. CONCLUSION: During this moment of internationalization and globalization in all health professional education, reflexivity and self-awareness are important strategies for engaging with decolonizing theoretical perspectives that are critical of Global North-South relations like neoliberal globalization and colonialism. Increased inclusion of pluralistic ways of approaching both processes are necessary for combatting growing health inequities in Canada and globally.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.103 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".