MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1704716872 · doi:10.25011/cim.v30i4.2766

6. CanMEDSification: The role of postgraduate medicine office in supporting the learning and teaching of CanMEDs Roles

2007· article· en· W1704716872 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Susan Glover Takahashi, Sarita Verma, L. Muharuma, R. Zulla

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationAttendanceMedicineMedical educationFaculty developmentGraduate medical educationProfessional developmentPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Postgraduate Medical Education Office at the University of Toronto has implemented a range of faculty development initiatives targeted at supporting the full implementation of CanMEDS roles and competencies in the day to day learning, teaching and evaluation of residents across the highly distributed postgraduate medicine training programs. In October 2005, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) released a revised version of the CanMEDS roles. In June 2006, the RCPSC accreditation standards for postgraduate medicine changed some standards which result in an increased expectation of implementation of the CanMEDS roles in teaching and evaluation of residency programs. From 2005 to 2007, there have been numerous initiatives by the Postgraduate Medical Education Office to support the understanding and implementation of the CanMEDS roles into the learning, evaluation and outcomes of postgraduate training at the University of Toronto. The PGME Office supported the ‘CanMEDSification’ or integration of the CanMEDS framework by: 1) Supporting the development of teacher/faculty teaching and evaluation resources; 2) Providing faculty development in the understanding of these competencies; 3) Providing explicit program feedback through the Internal Review process The CanMEDS roles have been widely integrated into teaching and evaluation at the University of Toronto. The high attendance rates at workshops and positive workshop evaluations indicate the value of centralized faculty development initiatives and also indicate an increasing confidence in using CanMEDS. The workshop evaluations also indicate a need for additional faculty development in evaluating the non Medical Expert roles. Shorter E. Oxford English Dictionary (5th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2002. Harris, IB. Deliberative inquiry: The arts of planning. in E.C. Short (ed.), Forms of curriculum inquiry. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991; 285-307. Harris, IB. New expectations for professional competence. In L. Curry & J. F. Wergin (Eds.), Educating professionals: Responding to new expectations for competence and accountability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993; 17-52.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.018

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicine→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→