“What got you here, won’t get you there”: Students as leaders of the change we need
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lack of access, system inequities, and inefficiencies plague our current healthcare system. With a challenge this complex, no one intervention is sufficient; all will be necessary. The primary care system needs a strong health workforce prepared in bold new ways. Students represent an important voice, given their role as future leaders of health education and healthcare. For students to lead, educators must leverage education paradigms that position current students as leaders of transformation. Yet, in current health education systems, students are often seen as passive recipients of knowledge and skill. Transformative education seeks to foster critical reflection (an ongoing process of questioning unhelpful assumptions and power relations) and informed action in students to enable them to challenge and change norms and change practices, structures, and society. This article highlights the value of transformative education in cultivating thoughtful change agents and provides one tangible example of a new education/practice model that puts this paradigm into action.
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 | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".