To what extent does a pharmacy curriculum foster diversity and inclusion through paper-based case scenarios?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is increasing awareness of diversity and inclusion needs within health and education systems to help address access and equity issues for minority groups. Although these calls are well known, there is little guidance for those working within these systems to create meaningful change. The purpose of this study was to critically review case-based teaching material within the authors' programmes through the lens of equity, diversity, and inclusion. Methods: A document analysis of clinical workshop cases extracted from all integrated therapeutics courses administered in 2020 was conducted. Results: Sex, age, and employment status were most commonly presented in cases (84.0%, 97.1%, 49.0% respectively). The majority (90.0%) of cases did not have ethnicity defined. The overwhelming majority of cases did not have living situation (68.3%) or sexual orientation (78.0%) defined. Conclusion: Case-based teaching material within a pharmacy programme was largely undefined according to patient demographics and diversity markers. Findings support the notion that teaching material may have a contributory role towards systemic racism, prejudice, and implicit bias.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it