A thematic analysis of students' discussions on death and body donation in international online focus groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, Anatomy education is an in-person discipline involving exposure to human body donors that facilitates personal and professional growth through, in part, the initiation of reflection on the topic of death. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic the decreased exposure to cadaveric anatomy for many health professions students may have influenced the depth of their individual reflections on this topic. Accordingly, this study aimed to investigate the effect of an alternate approach-focus group discussions between peers with varying degrees of exposure to cadaveric material-that may offer one strategy to stimulate deep reflection on the topic of death. A programmatic intervention was introduced, wherein students (n = 221) from 13 international universities discussed differences in their anatomy courses during small focus group sessions as part of an online exchange program. An inductive semantic thematic analysis was conducted on responses to an open-ended text-response question on how the activity influenced students' reflections about death. Resulting themes were organized into categories that described the content and topics of the students' discussions as they grappled with this sensitive topic. The students reportedly engaged in deep reflection and expressed an increased sense of connectedness with their peers, despite their disparate exposure levels to cadaveric anatomy and being physically distanced. This demonstrates that focus groups with students experiencing different laboratory contexts can be used to help all students reflect on the topic of death and that interchanges between dissecting and non-dissecting students can initiate thoughts about death and body donation among non-dissecting students.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".