Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: This article aims to outline perspectivism and perspectival thinking by drawing on established scholarship from the philosophy of science and to demonstrate its relevance to health professions education. Perspectivism embraces the notion that knowledge inherently arises from particular perspectives. "Truth" always depends on an evaluative background. Perspectivism is a form of epistemic humility that sees epistemic claims (relating to knowledge) as fundamentally historically and contextually situated. This article contends that perspectivism is a fruitful and relevant lens to apply to health professions assessment. It is a way of thinking that is all around us, even if we do not realize it. It extends discourse around the value of subjectivity in assessment and may cut through many prevailing debates on assessment practice. Perspectivism is a sort of middle ground that is not meant to be another idea or "-ism" to add to a list of ideas, but it constitutes a shift in how philosophy can be applied by adopting a broader, more holistic perspective. Applying a perspectival lens to health professions education embraces the imperative to make interpretive processes in assessment philosophically explicit. This opens the possibility of adopting multiple philosophical stances concurrently and allows actors to appreciate different methodological viewpoints with more charity. This scholarly perspective encourages the assessment community to continue to innovate through an appreciation of the importance of a wide range of assessment perspectives by uncovering the drivers of specific commitments to philosophical positions. Although the focus is on assessment in the health professions, perspectival thinking has the potential to advance medical education discourse and practice more generally beyond assessment. The hope with this essay is that by encouraging more critical reflection, this description of perspectival thinking will further aid researchers and practitioners in health professions education to better understand what is happening philosophically with more frequency.
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 | 0.035 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".