Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUNDPlanning for our new case-based interfaculty Master of Public Health program began in July 2010, with our first cohort of 32 students enrolled in September, 2013.Our original view of 'cases' was based on those used in professional programs such as those at Harvard.Harvard is credited for introducing the case method in the law school in 1870, and then in business administration in 1920 (Shugan, 2006).Part of our initial enthusiasm was practical: Western University's business school, the Richard Ivey School of Business, had adopted the Harvard approach in 1922 (Richard Ivey School of Business, n.d.), and we were very fortunate to have Ivey faculty, who were experienced with case teaching and writing, willing to help us develop our new curriculum.Early in the planning process, we searched the literature for published educational cases on public health topics to use in our new curriculum.We quickly realized that there is a paucity of teaching cases in public health.While there are many "healthcare industry" cases available, these cases predominantly use a business lens.These cases omit details that are of interest to public health professionals and are required for situation analysis and decision-making.Thus, these cases are often not directly transferable to a public health curriculum.In addition, many existing health related cases were set in the US and therefore did not reflect the reality of Canadian health systems, our uniquely Canadian issues, or the voices of the communities our students work with.Furthermore, given our program's focus on the public health of Southwestern Ontario, and First Nations across Canada and globally, the availability of appropriate teaching cases was further reduced.Case repositories (e.g.Harvard Publishing, Ivey Publishing, European Case Clearinghouse, etc.) have few teaching cases that can be adopted as written by a public health program, creating an opportunity for Western's faculty and practitioner colleagues to develop de novo cases for their courses by building on their own research and practice experiences.Initially, we adapted existing cases to our curriculum by focusing on and using the relevant public health content.Our faculty also began to write their own cases.Our students were to be placed in practica in local, national, and international public health organizations, where they would be working on an exceptionally broad array of projects.These diverse practicum placements were designed as penultimate learning experiences for students to apply the knowledge and skills acquired through the course of their study (Council on Education for Public Health, 2011).We realized that the students' practica experiences were potentially a valuable resource for relevant case material.As a result, we required that each student write a teaching case in which they would demonstrate their mastery of knowledge, including its synthesis and integration, through a real-world experience.This book represents a selection of public health cases written by students in the inaugural Western MPH Class of 2014.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.300 | 0.105 |
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".