59. General medicine residents' perception of the mini-CEXs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mini-CEX is a 30 minute observed clinical encounter. It can be done in the outpatient, inpatient or emergency room setting. It strives to look at several parameters including a clinical history, physical, professionalism and overall clinical competence. Trainees are rated using a 9-point scoring system: 1-3 unsatisfactory, 4-6 satisfactory and 7-9 superior. Eight months after the introduction of the mini-CEX to the core University of British Columbia Internal Medicine Residents, a one hour semi-structured focus group for residents in each of the three years took place. The focus groups were conducted by an independent moderator, audio-recorded and transcribed. Using a phenomenological approach the comments made by the focus groups participants were read independently by three authors, organized into major themes. In doing so, several intriguing common patterns were revealed on how General Medicine Residents perceive their experience in completing a mini-CEX. The themes include Education, Assessment and Preparation for the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons Internal Medicine exam. Resident learners perceived that the mini-CEX process provided insight into their clinical strengths and weaknesses. Focus group participants favored that the mini-CEX experience will benefit them in preparation, and successful completion of their licensing exam. Daelmans HE, Overmeer RM, van der Hem-Stockroos HH, Scherpbier AJ, Stehouwer CD, van der Vleuten CP. In-training assessment: qualitative study of effects on supervision and feedback in an undergraduate clinical rotation. Medical Education 2006; 40(1):51-8. De Lima AA, Henquin R, Thierer J, Paulin J, Lamari S, Belcastro F, Van der Vleuten CPM. A qualitative study of the impact on learning of the mini clinical evaluation exercise in postgraduate training. Medical Teacher January 2005; 27(1):46-52. DiCicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF. The Qualitative Research Interview. Medical Education 2006; 40:314-32.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".