MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201722495 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000004437

The Scope of Social Mission Content in Health Professions Education Accreditation Standards

2021· article· en· W3201722495 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationScope (computer science)Health professionsContent (measure theory)Content analysisPipeline (software)Representation (politics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Health professions education accreditation standards influence institutional practices and policies and ensure high-quality education that meets the needs of patients and society. Social mission is the contribution of a school in its mission, programs, and the performance of its graduates, faculty, and leadership to advancing health equity and addressing the health disparities of the society in which it exists. This study examined the scope of social mission content in major U.S. and Canadian health professions education accreditation standards. METHOD: The authors analyzed publicly available accreditation standards documents from 9 accreditors across 5 disciplines-dental, medical, nursing, pharmacy, and physician assistant schools-with effective years from 2016 to 2020. They created a codebook from the previously published social mission metrics survey, which includes 18 social mission activity areas and 79 indicators within those areas. The authors then conducted detailed document reviews to identify the presence of the social mission areas and indicators within the accreditation standards. RESULTS: Across all 18 activity areas and 9 accreditors, the authors identified 93 instances of social mission. Curriculum was the most well-represented area with 34 instances. Interprofessional education in curriculum was the most prevalent indicator with 17 instances. The Committee on Accreditation of Canadian Medical Schools included more social mission areas and indicators than the other accreditors. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variability in the social mission content in accreditation standards across accreditors and disciplines. The authors found little representation of key aspects of social mission, including community collaborations, faculty training, and pipeline programs. These findings highlight areas of potential interdisciplinary collaboration to enhance the social mission content of health professions education.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.176
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.176
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.399 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207