Medical Education in the United States and Canada, 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the third time this century, the Association of American Medical Colleges has coordinated a collection of reports from their member medical schools that collectively reflect the state of medical education in the United States and Canada. This introduction to the September 2020 supplement to Academic Medicine provides an overview of the collection, with 145 out of 171 eligible medical schools participating in the project. The authors observe trends and similarities across the reports from participating schools, structuring the introduction to mirror the main questions posed to the schools: highlights of each school's medical education program, curriculum description, curricular governance, education staff, faculty development and support in medical education, regional medical campuses, and initiatives in progress. Key findings from the authors include expansion of student enrichment tracks, early clinical encounters, focus on wellness, expansion in competency-based medical education, and continued evolution of approaches to assessment. The authors note that this supplement was produced before COVID-19, and although it robustly chronicles the prepandemic state of medical education, medical education has already evolved and will continue to do so. This view offers important opportunities to observe and study changes in the curricula.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".