MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224053984 · doi:10.36834/cmej.73640

Longitudinal advocacy training for medical students: a virtual workshop series

2022· article· en· W4224053984 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Courtney Hardy, Mary Boulos, Sehjal Bhargava, Liam A. Cooper-Brown, Montana Hackett, Jessica M. Hearn, Elizabeth Rowe, Justin Shapiro, Jason Speidel, Amelia Srajer, Shazeen Suleman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Education Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. Michael's HospitalWestern UniversityUniversity of CalgaryMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of SaskatchewanWomen's College HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMedical educationStatement (logic)Computer sciencePsychologyMedicinePolitical sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advocacy curricula in Canadian medical schools vary significantly. Expert-led, interactive workshops can effectively teach students how to address social determinants of health and advocate for patients. The Longitudinal Advocacy Training Series (LATS) is a free-of-charge, virtual program providing advocacy training created for Canadian medical students by students. The program was straightforward to implement and had high participation rates with 1140 participants representing 9.7% of enrolled Canadian medical students. As well, the program had high satisfaction reported by 87.6% of participants. The LATS toolkit enables health professional programs to develop similar programs for empowering effective health advocates.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Education JournalSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207