Community organization feedback about an undergraduate medical education service learning program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2016, Service Learning (SL) became a curricular requirement for undergraduate medical education (UGME) students at the University of Manitoba. Students partner with a community-based organization for two years to engage in non-clinical activities in community settings. Significant feedback has been collected from students re: their SL experiences. This project specifically collected feedback from community organizations involved with SL. METHODS: In June 2019, an electronic survey was distributed to the 36 community organizations involved with SL. RESULTS: Twenty-seven organizations completed the survey. Feedback was grouped into two main themes: 1) Logistics and 2) The SL Experience. About half (52%) of respondents indicated it was "easy" to schedule students for SL; however, students' busy schedules and differences between hours of organization programming and students' availability were highlighted. Most respondents described students as "engaged" (70%); respondents indicated SL raised students' understanding of power and privilege (56%) and systemic oppression (63%). CONCLUSIONS: Community organizations shared valuable insights to inform the SL program. Results identified specific aspects of the SL program to address moving forward, such as sharing learning objectives with community partners. Ensuring processes are in place to obtain feedback from community partners is an essential step to improve SL programs, and to strengthen reciprocal community-university partnerships.
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 | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 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".