Journey into uncertainty: Medical students' experiences and perceptions of failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Having succeeded in being selected for medical school, medical students are not always familiar with failure and yet they are expected to graduate prepared to effectively function in the failure-burdened arena of clinical medicine. Lacking in the developing literature on learners and failure is an exploration of how this transformation is accomplished. The purpose of this study was to examine how medical students perceive and experience failure during their medical school training. METHOD: We used a qualitative description methodology to probe the failure experiences of medical students attending a Canadian medical school. Participants were provided with the broad definition of failure used in this research: 'deviation from expected and desired results.'In total, 12 students were sampled, three from each of the 4 years of study, and participated in individual, semi-structured interviews that were analysed using thematic analysis to identify and describe core themes. RESULTS: At the start of medical school, students admitted limited experience with failure; their early descriptions were self-centred and binary. Personal stories recounted by preceptors encouraged students and helped them understand that physicians are human and that failure is inevitable. Students felt relatively protected from failures that could impact patients. Both witnessing and participating in a failure event were distressing and sometimes at odds with their expectations. Students expressed a desire to talk about the experience. CONCLUSIONS: Medical students described examples of experiencing failure during medical school that transported them from the more certain black and white beginnings of their classroom into the uncertain shades of grey of clinical medicine. What the participants heard, saw and experienced suggests opportunities for classroom teachers to better prepare pre-clinical students for the inevitability of failure in clinical medicine and opportunities for clinical teachers to engage in open, inclusive conversations surrounding failures that occur on their watch.
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| 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".