Honors Track in Global and Occupational Health: a students’ perspective from Humanitas University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background To meet an increasing interest in global health, more opportunities for medical students should be created. Humanitas University (Milan, Italy) has debuted a new extracurricular activity called “Honors Track in Global and Occupational Health” (HT-GOH), to allow students critical insights into the field at the beginning of their career. Objectives HT-GOH is a two-year programme, led by expert professors in the field. The main aim is to circumvent limitations of global health education at individual institutions, achieved through a combined presence and online approach that allows for international collaboration with experts and attendance of online lectures and travel abroad for practical experiences. Complemented by monthly meetings, participation to workshops, seminars, conferences, and the discussion and literature review of crucial global health topics. Results The six participating students are actively promoting discussions, exchange of ideas, and literature findings on many global health issues. They audited courses in other universities and are building connections within the field. The active involvement of the students and their increasing interest in the global health debate can be seen by their participation in this abstract and the conference. The effectiveness of the programme is being evaluated through monthly feedback by students. Conclusions The programme allows for an initiation to research work, promoting collaboration between students and exploration of a variety of topics under the guidance of experts. The nature of a specific programme allows for a more individualized approach and greater development of skills unique to each student. This HT represent a valid approach to global health education, especially in settings in which this field is only taught in the context of a public health course. Key messages • A new programme at Humanitas University offering an innovative approach to the field of global health to interested students. • The students’ perspective towards an integrated approach to global health in medical schools.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".