University of British Columbia Faculty of Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Curriculum Management and Governance Structure (See Figure 1)FIGURE 1: Governance of the MD Program ♦ The governance structure of the MD undergraduate program (Figure 1) has been reviewed and changed over the past two years to reflect the implementation of a new curriculum introduced in 1997. ♦ Terms of reference have been developed for all the committees. ♦ Management of the program is now centrally coordinated by the undergraduate dean's office. ♦ Clerkships are still departmentally managed. Office of Education ♦ Educational support for all the health professions programs at UBC is provided by the Division of Educational Support and Development, located in the Office of the Coordinator of Health Sciences. ♦ About 80% of the division's work is to support the Faculty of Medicine in the areas of student assessment, program evaluation, Web-site management, and curriculum and faculty development. Budget to Support Educational Programs ♦ The school is in the process of defining the budget for the MD undergraduate program. Valuing Teaching ♦ During the past three years there has been a major focus on faculty development to support the implementation of the new curriculum, with a particular focus on the training and in-service support of PBL tutors. ♦ Faculty development is coordinated by two half-time directors of faculty development, advised by a faculty development committee. ♦ The newly formed Teaching Recognition and Evaluation Committee is working on a proposal to develop a special designation for faculty who devote the majority of their time to reaching. CURRICULUM RENEWAL PROCESS Learning Outcomes ♦ The school has a set of defined competencies for medical undergraduates (a copy is available from the first author). Changes in Pedagogy ♦ The new MD undergraduate program has a major focus on small-group, self-directed learning, including three PBL tutorials each week for the first two years. ♦ There is emphasis on early patient contact through three continuity courses: Family Practice; Communication/Clinical Skills; and Doctor, Patient and Society. Application of Computer Technology ♦ Students are required to own computers. ♦ Curriculum information, such as schedules, lecture notes, images, and other learning resources, as well as learning objectives and weekly quizzes, are provided on a Web site. ♦ Some assignments and examinations are computer-based. ♦ Communication with students is largely through electronic mail. ♦ Computer literacy skills are taught as part of the curriculum. Curriculum Review Process ♦ The Program Evaluation Committee is responsible for evaluating the implementation of the new curriculum. ♦ Each course that has been implemented has been reviewed at least once and modifications made. ♦ Over the next five years the success of the program will continue to be evaluated against longer-term outcome measures. ♦ The new MD undergraduate program was introduced in August 1997. ♦ The final year of the new program will be implemented in 2000–2001. ♦ The new curriculum was developed as a consequence of recommendations from the 1993 Accreditation Report. ♦ A strategic planning group set up by the dean developed a blueprint for the new curriculum in November 1994. ♦ Implementation was led by the Curriculum Implementation Task Force, whose members were course directors and educational and administrative support staff. ♦ Successful implementation can be attributed to factors such as leadership and support from the dean, the creation of some new administrative and leadership positions, a core of dedicated faculty, a major faculty development initiative, involvement of students in monitoring evaluation and problem solving, and good feed-back and feed-forward loops. ♦ Barriers include variable support from department heads and disaffection of faculty in a few key departments; financial problems in the medical school and a shrinking teaching pool; burnout of the pioneer faculty, limited success in attracting new education leaders to key positions; and ongoing problems with communication in a large faculty. Future Goals and Challenges ♦ Major goals to be achieved over the next few years are to create a student-assessment system that better reflects the aims of the curriculum, and to improve the delivery of the curriculum to maximize integration and cumulative learning and minimize redundancies and gaps.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.554 | 0.193 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".