MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213450179 · doi:10.1002/wmh3.503

Evaluating the impact of a social medicine course delivered in a local‐global context: A 10‐year multi‐site analysis

2022· article· en· W4213450179 on OpenAlexaff
Vanessa Voller, Alex Olirus Owilli, Andrew X. Yang, Amy Finnegan, Michael Westerhaus

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Medical & Health Policy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumShort courseSocial determinants of healthEquity (law)Context (archaeology)Medical educationHealth equityHealth carePsychologyGerontologyMedicineSociologyFamily medicineNursingPublic healthPolitical scienceGeographyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Amidst the COVID‐19 pandemic and social uprisings demanding social and racial equity worldwide, there is an increasing demand for health justice training for health workers. However, there are scant evidence‐based assessments of the impact of such courses. Between 2010 and 2020, SocMed—a 501(c)3 non‐profit social justice organization—offered two distinct courses about health equity, the social determinants of health, and social medicine to health workers through the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Saint Mary Hospital Lacor in Gulu, Uganda. This study assesses the immediate impact of the SocMed curriculum on participants measured by a pre‐course and post‐course survey. In Minnesota, paired pre‐course and post‐course survey responses (mean n = 69; SD = 23) spanned years 2016–2019, while Uganda paired pre‐course and post‐course survey responses (mean n = 64; SD = 21) spanned years 2012–2013 and 2017–2019. Findings indicate that the course improved participants’ knowledge in all 24 of the topics in the Minnesota course and 42 of 44 topics in the Uganda course (significant at p < 0.05).

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.622
Teacher spread0.486 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Medical & Health PolicySame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207