MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1980197159 · doi:10.1097/00001888-200109000-00012

An Important Achievement

2001· article· en· W1980197159 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Karen Mann

Notice bibliographique

RevueAcademic Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueInnovations in Medical Education
Établissements canadiensDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPresentation (obstetrics)Consistency (knowledge bases)Medical educationResource (disambiguation)General partnershipTask (project management)Library sciencePsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceManagement

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

As Chair of the Research in Medical Education Section of the AAMC's Group on Educational Affairs, I am pleased to write a brief foreword to this document, “Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts.” It was conceived of by Addeane Caelleigh, editor of Academic Medicine, and its development was the first task of the journal's Research Advisory Committee, formed to advise the editor on research-related issues. The project was undertaken in partnership with the Research in Medical Education Section, and co-chaired by Georges Bordage and Addeane Caelleigh. They were joined by a team of medical education researchers and Academic Medicine editors, who worked together intensively for two years to produce this document. The completion of this guide for reviewers of research manuscripts represents an important achievement in both content and process. In content, the document brings together a synthesis of best practices, expressed in review criteria that encompass all types of research and scholarly writing in medical education and that, in addition, are applicable to a much wider spectrum of research manuscripts in clinical medicine and the social sciences. It will, as envisioned by the co-chairs, serve as a valuable resource for reviewers, clarifying for them the complex interacting nature of publication decisions and their contribution to that process. The presentation of criteria will enhance the consistency and quality of manuscript reviews across reviewers, and may also improve the consistency of reviews for individual reviewers. The document will also be a valuable resource to authors, providing them a framework, or scaffold, that will assist them as they build both their studies and their reports, and will guide them in seeking advice appropriately. Through its guidance for both reviewers and authors, the document will ultimately contribute to enhanced scholarship, certainly in the field of medical education and hopefully in other fields as well. We in the medical education community will find this review-criteria document to be very timely. It complements our attempts to move medical education toward more evidence-based practice. Fields of study are advanced in different ways and by a variety of forces; currently, there are influences for change from both the researchers and the practitioners of medical education. Medical education has become increasingly challenging in the face of rising societal expectations and the changed and changing systems of health care. Our challenge is to systematically build a discipline to support us in the crucial task of preparing physicians. This presentation of criteria will be an important resource to help us achieve that goal. The report is also a significant achievement of process. It represents the dedication and commitment of experienced researchers to improve the field. Further, it is the result of collegial work toward a joint goal of individuals with different perspectives and approaches to research, who discussed, shared, and listened to each others' viewpoints to find the underlying commonalities that will build the discipline of medical education. Congratulations and sincere thanks to all who contributed to this project. Task Force Members Georges Bordage, MD, PhD Professor and director of graduate studies Department of Medical Education University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago, Illinois Addeane S. Caelleigh Editor, Academic Medicine Association of American Medical Colleges Washington, D.C. Ann Steinecke, PhD Staff editor, Academic Medicine Association of American Medical Colleges Washington, D.C. Carole J. Bland, PhD Professor, vice chair for research and faculty affairs, and research fellowship director Department of Family Practice and Community Health University of Minnesota School of Medicine Minneapolis, Minnesota Sonia J. S. Crandall, PhD Associate professor and director of faculty development Department of Family and Community Medicine Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem, North Carolina William C. McGaghie, PhD Professor of medical education and professor of preventive medicine Northwestern University Medical School Chicago, Illinois Louis A. Pangaro, MD Professor and vice chairman for educational programs Department of Medicine Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Bethesda, Maryland Gary Penn Former staff editor, Academic Medicine Association of American Medical Colleges Washington, D.C. Glenn Regehr, PhD Associate professor, Department of Psychiatry, and associate director, Centre for Research in Education at the University Health Network University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine Toronto, ON, Canada Judy A. Shea, PhD Associate professor of medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, and director of evaluation and assessment University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,041
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,111
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,061
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,214

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0410,111
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,010
Communication savante0,0280,016
Science ouverte0,0040,016
Intégrité de la recherche0,0140,026
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0610,082

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,033
Tête enseignante GPT0,395
Écart entre enseignants0,362 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2001
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAcademic Medicine→Même sujetInnovations in Medical Education→Travaux en français237 207→