Medical students’ views on what professionalism means: an Ubuntu perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical training has become a global phenomenon, and the Physician's Charter (PC), as a missionary document, is key to training those outside the Global North. Undergraduate and postgraduate students in the medical profession are sometimes trained in contexts foreign to their social and ontological backgrounds. This might lead to confusion and blunders, creating an impression of what might look and feel unprofessional to those unfamiliar with the local context. Understanding the cultural backgrounds of the trainees is crucial, and the reverse is also as important. It is essential for clinicians and trainees to understand the cultural backgrounds of their patients to avoid miscommunication. In this phenomenological study, we recruited participants in 2020 who were in their first to fourth year of study of medical training during the #FeesMustFall protests. We used data from this extensive study looking at students' experiences during their training amidst protest and social upheavals in a South African tertiary institution. For this paper, we examined what professionalism means to the student participants using an African Ubuntu lens. Ubuntu and the Collective Finger theory were used to investigate what professionalism means to participants. The Ubuntu philosophy was compared to the PC. In the findings, the clinical space is hierarchical, silencing and the opposite of what Ubuntu means. In comparison to the PC, respect is overarching while compassion and responsibility are the most comparable to the Charter. This study adds an African voice to the professionalism discourse while showing African elements that could be aligned to the PC to challenge the current global discourses.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".