MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220815058 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000004351

The Importance of Developing and Implementing an Inclusive Language and Image Policy in Medical Schools

2021· article· en· W4220815058 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Statement (logic)Diversity (politics)White paperLanguage policyLanguage industryStyle (visual arts)First language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: Exclusionary language and images in academic medicine are common 1 and harmful. 2,3 Sexist jokes are frequent during medical school lectures. 2 Of over 4,000 images in medical school lectures, 61% depicted men and 78% portrayed White patients. 1 Stigmatizing language also occurs; it worsens self-management of disease and increases bias. 3,4 A culture of inclusion requires shifting the language and images used in academic medicine. Inclusive language is “free of bias and avoids perpetuating prejudicial beliefs,” 5 and inclusive images represent patients’ diversity. We developed the Inclusive Language and Images Policy 6 (ILIP) to facilitate changing culture at our institution, using relevant literature reviews and stakeholders’ views. The ILIP applies to lectures, email signatures, and institutional documents. The components of ILIP are: Introduction to inclusive language and imagery, Statement of leadership support, Explanation of principles of inclusive language and imagery with resources and examples, 1 Guidance for email signatures, and Inclusive and diversity disclosure statement for presentations. The benefits of inclusive language and imagery are supported by evidence. 4,7 Inclusive language often uses person-first and strengths-based wordings rather than using a medical illness as a noun (e.g., “person with diabetes” rather than “a diabetic”). Inclusive language is nonjudgmental, facts-based, mentions personal characteristics only when medically relevant, nonstigmatizing, and uses the singular “they.” Many national societies provide population-specific guidelines. The American Psychology Association’s style guide discussions of bias-free language can guide presentations and writing. However, individual preferences of appropriate language should take precedence over established principles in one-on-one interactions. The ILIP is dynamic and should be adapted when necessary—for example, to acknowledge the history of the institution: its policies, celebrated figures, land, and achievements. We have added an Indigenous land acknowledgment to presentations as a local adaptation to support guidelines concerning truth and reconciliation. Uses of the ILIP should be monitored for adherence; one option is to include questions about inclusion on presenter evaluations. Continuing education may be needed to support faculty as they implement ILIP policies. Shifting the culture of medicine requires role modeling by faculty, and the ILIP can provide this framework.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.454 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207