Professional identity formation among undergraduate pre-medical students: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Professional Identity formation is the process by which learners internalize a profession's values, behaviors, and perceptions. With respect to physicians, this occurs at multiple levels of medical education, including the undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education stages. Professional identity formation likely starts even earlier, during the undergraduate pre-medical years but, to date, no known scoping or systematic review has been conducted on this topic. The objective of this scoping review is to systematically map the literature on professional identity formation among undergraduate pre-medical students. METHODS: This review protocol has been designed following the Arksey and O'Malley framework. We will search MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Scopus, as well as relevant grey literature, conference proceedings, and citations of selected articles. Inclusion criteria are articles (1) written in the English language, (2) involving undergraduate pre-medical students in the USA and Canada, and (3) containing original data about professional identity formation. Two independent reviewers will evaluate the titles, abstracts, and full articles for eligibility. A third reviewer will help resolve any disputes. Once the full text of articles are obtained, data will be abstracted using a standardized form. A narrative summary of findings will then be conducted, as well as a consultation exercise with university pre-medical students, pre-med advisors, and first-year medical students. DISCUSSION: By conducting this scoping review, we expect to gain a better understanding of how the experiences of undergraduate pre-medical students impact their professional identity formation. These findings will help to identify gaps in the literature, to better characterize professional identity formation in the specific context of the undergraduate pre-medical track, and to outline potential approaches to facilitate professional identity formation among undergraduate pre-medical students. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework ( htps://osf.io/nfzxc ).
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 | 0.174 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.012 |
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".