Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Over the past ten to fifteen years, health sciences universities have scrutinized, revised, and reformed their curricula in response to changes in accreditation, applicant pools, funding, licensing examinations, and recommendations made by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), the World Federation of Medical Education, and other organizations. Increased interest in program evaluation and student outcomes has emphasized the value of interactive small-group learning over didactic lectures. Recent curricular changes have afforded librarians unprecedented opportunities to participate in curriculum planning and to contribute to the success of student-centered learning. Health sciences librarians provide, organize, and support many of the resources, services, and facilities necessary for students to communicate, learn, research, manage biomedical information, teach, and succeed during their academic years and thrive later in professional practice. Problem-based learning (PBL) is an important component of recent medical education reform and poses special challenges for educators and librarians alike. This primer provides a rich context for understanding PBL by compiling and reprinting key articles from a variety of sources (Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, Academic Medicine, Postgraduate Medical Journal, Health Libraries Review, Journal of Dental Education, Journal of Nursing Education, Journal of Allied Health, etc.), supplemented by new material written by accomplished medical librarians such as Rankin, LaBeause, Dimitroff, Sayre, Fitzgerald, Eldredge, Leishman, and others. More than sixty contributors represent leading academic health sciences universities in North America (Mercer University School of Medicine, McMaster University, University of New Mexico, Tufts University, Dalhousie University, University of Nebraska Medical Center, and University of Toronto) with international perspectives from the Netherlands (University of Limburg at Maastricht), United Kingdom (University of Liverpool), and Sweden (Linkoeping University). Appropriately, this book is edited by the director of the Medical Library at Mercer University School of Medicine, an institution that introduced a full PBL curriculum when the medical school was established in 1982. The handbook is arranged into six major sections: “What is PBL?,” “Major PBL Issues,” “Measuring PBL Outcomes,” “Effects of PBL on Libraries: Reviews and Research,” “PBL and Libraries: New Roles and Program Opportunities,” and “Conclusion.” Librarians not yet involved in PBL will appreciate ideas and insights related to new roles and responsibilities such as serving as librarian-facilitators, providing train-the-trainer instruction for students, and participating in curriculum planning. History enthusiasts may be disappointed by the repetitive but cursory mention of Plato, Socrates, and landmark publications important to medical education reform (the Flexner report, GPEP report, and ACME-TRI report). The usefulness of this resource is enhanced by a four-page glossary, author-subject index, and six-page selected bibliography. Some libraries may wish to purchase several copies to distribute to colleagues on various curriculum committees.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,092 | 0,074 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».