OA1‐AM23‐MN‐06 | Addressing Racial Disparities in Donor Pools: A Workshop to Guide Medical Student Development in Health Advocacy by Advancing Equity Across Donation Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Case Studies: Health advocacy is an important skill for medical students to develop, but is challenging to teach.Here, we describe the development and evaluation of a workshop to support Canadian medical students to develop as health advocates through advancing health equity across donation products for racialized peoples.Study Design/Methods: We developed a workshop for a Canadian medical school audience, "Addressing racial disparities in blood, stem cell, and organ and tissue donor pools" consisting of an online module followed by a virtual facilitated discussion group.The online module (available at stemcellclub.ca/training)outlined disparities in donor pools across donation products, barriers to donation impacting racialized/ ethnic populations, and structural racism in donation policies (i.e., policies which disproportionately impact racialized/ ethnic peoples).The module also presented content from a national campaign in Canada to
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 | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.021 |
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".