Understanding the perspective of community co-educators on community-based service learning: a qualitative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Community-based service learning (CBSL) is a core component of the Canadian medical education system. However, the unique role of community partner organizations (CPOs) in supporting CBSL remains unclear. This qualitative study evaluates the perspective of CPOs as co-educators in the undergraduate medical curriculum. Methods: We conducted eight semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with CPOs at a medical school in Toronto, Ontario between 2020-2021. Interviews were conducted following a pre-determined interview guide and then recorded, de-identified, and transcribed. Three reviewers independently performed an inductive thematic analysis of codes followed by a group review of discrepancies. Results: Five main findings were identified: 1) CPOs share a common interest in serving as co-educators; 2) considerable heterogeneity in the understanding of co-education exists; 3) there is an opportunity for increased partnerships between CPOs and faculty; 4) the role of co-educators is limited by curriculum structure; and 5) co-educators facilitate unique teachings of social determinants of health otherwise not available through traditional didactic teaching. Conclusions: There is an emerging, unique role for community co-educators in the undergraduate medical curriculum, supported by interest from CPOs. Its emphasis may contribute to future cohorts of medical students capable of understanding and addressing the needs of the populations they serve.
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 | 0.025 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".