The impact of a global health elective on CanMEDS competencies and future practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is evidence that participating in global health electives generates positive educational outcomes and personal benefits for medical trainees. The objective of this study was to examine the effect and impact that a global health elective has on CanMEDS competencies and anticipated future practice. RESULTS: The medical expert, collaborator, leader, scholar, and professional CanMEDS competencies were self-perceived to be strongly impacted through this elective. A total of 94% of participants indicated it increased their strengths as a medical expert and leader, 82% indicated a major impact on the scholar competency, 88% of participants reported a strong impact as a professional, and 76% of participants indicated that it strongly impacted them as a collaborator. The majority of participants continue to have involvement in global health, and 88% of respondents found this elective to be influential on their current practice and beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that individuals who participated in this global health elective perceived value in their experience. These findings support our hypothesis that participation in this global health elective would generate self-perceived positive impacts. Global health electives may provide an opportunity for physicians to expand on their CanMEDS competencies and become more proficient in caring for diverse patient populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".