MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1707613783 · doi:10.25011/cim.v30i4.2809

75. Learning on the run - Practical strategies for physician learning

2007· article· en· W1707613783 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
R. Bankey, Claire Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)White paperLifelong learningCertificationMedical educationMandateOpen learningWhite (mutation)Active learning (machine learning)PsychologyMedicineComputer sciencePedagogyArtificial intelligenceCooperative learningManagementTeaching methodPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a part of the Center for Learning in Practice’s (CLIP) mandate, a white paper series on topics of relevance to the educational needs of fellows was developed. The first in this series of white papers, was one entitled: Lifelong Learning White Paper - Supporting Physician Lifelong Learning: Strategies, Tools and Recommendations. This white paper focused on a variety of themes including the concept of ‘learning on the run’, which means that learning takes place wherever you are and occurs on a daily basis over the course of one’s work routine. In other words, learning and the learning context is driven by one’s practice context as well as by one’s own career goals and needs. The center for learning in practice is currently producing a series of thematic monographs/booklets for physicians based on the white papers, the first of which is entitled: Learning on the run- practical strategies for physician learning. The purpose of these monographs are to assist physicians with their learning and practice needs and contain a section on how tools and programs within the Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program can enhance and contribute to physician learning strategies. This poster details the content of a draft monograph on ‘learning on the run’ for physicians to use and comment on. These comments will be used to refine and enhance the monograph in order for CLIP to disseminate it more widely across North America. The monograph can also be accessed under CLIP’s section of The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada website - http://rcpsc.medical.org/clip/index.php

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.044

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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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