Keeping Traditions? Perceptions Of Anatomy's Relevance To Clinical Training And Practice Across Successive Cohorts Of Graduating MD Students In A New Medical Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sixty‐eight medical students comprising three successive graduating classes completed a questionnaire as part of continuing quality improvement to the anatomy program at the University of British Columbia (UBC) Southern Medical Program. Specifically, they were asked to declare an opinion as to whether the cadaver‐based anatomy education they had received during the first two years of studies, prepared them for further clinical training or was relevant to their clinical practice and/or to specific clinical specialties they encountered during clerkship. Respondents also indicated how confident they were that their current knowledge of anatomy was of the quality required of a medical graduate in Canada, as well as whether factors such as method of instruction or location of their campus (hence access to a diversity of resources) affected this perceived confidence. Majority of students felt that their anatomy education sufficiently prepared them for clinical clerkship. Most respondents also rated their knowledge of anatomy of a quality requisite of a Canadian medical graduate. Even though anatomy received near unanimous approval of respondents as being relevant to their clinical training and practice, individual comments as well as consistently low rankings for the utility of cadaveric dissection, give room for pause as to whether current modes of anatomy teaching at UBC and similar institutions, sufficiently capture the need for clinically‐relevant and effective anatomy education in a millennial generation. Support or Funding Information University of British Columbia, Faculty of Medicine, Southern Medical Program
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".