Community engagement in US and Canadian medical schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adam O Goldstein, Rachel Sobel BearmanDepartment of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USAIntroduction: This study examines the integration of community engagement and community-engaged scholarship at all accredited US and Canadian medical schools in order to better understand and assess their current state of engagement.Methods: A 32-question data abstraction instrument measured the role of community engagement and community-engaged scholarship as represented on the Web sites of all accredited US and Canadian medical schools. The instrument targeted a medical school's mission and vision statements, institutional structure, student and faculty awards and honors, and faculty tenure and promotion guidelines.Results: Medical school Web sites demonstrate little evidence that schools incorporate community engagement in their mission or vision statements or their promotion and tenure guidelines. The majority of medical schools do not include community service terms and/or descriptive language in their mission statements, and only 8.5% of medical schools incorporate community service and engagement as a primary or major criterion in promotion and tenure guidelines.Discussion: This research highlights significant gaps in the integration of community engagement or community-engaged scholarship into medical school mission and vision statements, promotion and tenure guidelines, and service administrative structures.Keywords: medical school, education, community service, mission, tenure, engagement
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 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 teacher head, 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".