Teaching compassion for social accountability: A parallaxic investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In an arts integrated interdisciplinary study set to investigate ways to improve social accountability (SA) in medical education, our research team has established a renewed understanding of compassion in the current SA movement. AIM: This paper explores the co-evolution of compassion and SA. METHODS: The study used an arts integrated approach to investigate people's perceptions of SA in four medical schools across Australia, Canada, and the USA. Each school engaged approximately 25 participants who partook in workshops and in-depth interviews. RESULTS: We began with a study of SA and the topic of compassion emerged out of our qualitative data and biweekly meetings within the research team. Content analysis of the data and pedagogical discussion brought us to realize the importance of compassion in the practice of SA. CONCLUSIONS: The cultivation of compassion needs to play a significant role in a socially accountable medical educational system. Medical schools as educational institutions may operate themselves with compassion as a driving force in engaging partnership with students and communities. Social accountability without compassion is not SA; compassion humanizes institutional policy by engaging sympathy and care.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.173 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".