An evaluation of mindful clinical congruence in medical students after course-based teaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We questioned whether an intensive experiential core course would change medical students' intention to practice mindful clinical congruence. Our primary hypothesis was that we would see more of a change in the intention to practice mindful clinical congruence in those who had taken versus not yet taken our course. Methods: From a class of 179 in second year we recruited 57 (32%) students who had been already divided into three groups that completed the course in successive periods. We measured mindful clinical congruence using a questionnaire developed and evaluated for validity. We also measured students' level of stress to determine if any effects we saw were related to stress reduction. Results: Students who had just completed the course showed a greater intention to practice mindful clinical congruence than students who had not yet started the course. There was an apparent slight increase in perceived stress in those who had completed our course. Conclusions: We can change students' intention to practice mindfully and congruently, which we believe will prevent a decline in compassion and ethical values in clerkship. The results did not appear to be explained by a decrease in stress in students who completed the course.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".