Evaluation of Canadian medical educators as EDI concepts are integrated into curricula: a scoping review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of the tutor and their competencies in facilitating conversations about equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the Canadian medical education setting has not been studied and is not supported by evidence in the literature. The importance of the integration of EDI integration is supported through reports of student experiences, however the implementation of these concepts has not been evaluated and therefore the benefits are unknown. Tutors significantly impact their students' experiences and have been reported to be the cause of negative perceptions and career path changes, sometimes due to their discriminatory views. OBJECTIVE This review aimed to review the literature on tutor competencies as EDI concepts are integrated into medical education, as well as the available information regarding EDI implementation on the websites of each English-speaking Canadian medical school. METHODS PRISMA-ScR guidelines were used to conduct a literature search using the Ovid Database. Any publications that discussed problem based learning, the role of the tutor, or student experience with EDI in medical institutions met inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria was location based - only papers discussing Canadian or Australian contexts were included to ensure relevance to Canada’s political climate and colonial history. Once identified to be included in the review, a descriptive analysis of each publication was performed. A review of the publicly available websites of Canadian medical institutions was also performed using a scoring matrix to evaluate each institution. RESULTS The literature search found zero publications exploring the role of the tutor and EDI at medical institutions, and only 9 discussing adjacent topics. The website search elicited more information, despite varying amounts of information between institutions. CONCLUSIONS With these findings, this review was able to formulate recommendations for future studies and practices for medical institutions including the formal evaluation of tutors and EDI initiatives, and transparency in order to publicly display EDI-based efforts.
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 | 0.055 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".