Making Medical History Relevant to Medical Students: The First Fifty Years of the Calgary History of Medicine Program and History of Medicine Days Conferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical historians and educators have long lamented that the integration of the study of the history of medicine into the educational curricula of medical schools and clinic-based teaching has been protractedly troubled. Employing the development of the history of medicine program at the University of Calgary as a case study, this article emphasizes the importance of integrating medical history with teaching schedules to further students' insights into changing health care settings, the social contingency of disease concepts, and socio-economic dependences of medical decision-making. History of medicine programs can furnish plentiful opportunities for research training through summer projects, insight courses, and field practica. This article explores the first fifty years of the History of Medicine and Health Care Program in Calgary and considers the impact of interdisciplinary cooperation as well as the role of interprofessional undergraduate and clinical medical education. Through this exploration, I argue that medical history should be a central part of study curricula, that a historical understanding can provide a robust background for physicians in a fast-changing world in the clinic, and that through their disciplinary expertise, medical historians play a fruitful role in scholarly and teaching exchanges with medical students and clinicians in the modern medical humanities.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".