“It’s important to foster open discussion about the topic”: development, implementation, and evaluation of an ethics of abortion independent learning module for second year medical students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite the frequency of abortions, one-third of medical schools in the US and Canada did not include coverage of that topic, according to a survey conducted in 2002-2005. The purpose of this project was to develop, implement, and evaluate a module for second year medical students related to the ethics of abortion. METHODS: The module was designed as Independent Learning Time (ILT). The stated purpose was for students to consider some of the recent debate in the ethics literature related to conscientious objection and abortion and how personal views may influence future practice. The ILT included readings and Power Points to view. Students were asked to write a one-page reflection on one of three writing prompts. RESULTS: The most commonly selected writing prompt in three classes was on personal values in relation to abortion (56.5%), followed by information about nearest provider of reproductive services to rural preceptor site (34.7%), followed by conscientious objection (23.3%). We received many positive comments about the ILT, including: "First, I would like to acknowledge my gratitude for this assignment and its subject. I believe it is very important that future physicians learn the entirety of women's reproductive health care, including abortion and contraception, but unfortunately this is not always the case in medical training". CONCLUSIONS: There has been an extremely positive response to the ILT. With the exception of the prompt specific to our regional campus mission that includes rural preceptorships during the preclinical years, this module could be implementable at other medical schools.
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 | 0.022 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".