DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF A NATIONAL SET OF LEARNING OBJECTIVES: THE MEDICAL PHYSIOLOGY LEARNING OBJECTIVES PROJECT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1998, the American Physiological Society (APS) and the Association of Chairs of Departments of Physiology (ACDP) began collaboration on a project to develop a set of physiology learning objectives for medical students. Over the next 2 years, more than 50 physiologists collaborated in the development a comprehensive draft containing its 695 learning objectives. Faculty in 31 medical schools in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico evaluated these objectives. On the basis of this evaluation, the ACDP recommended deleting 13 of them. The final project, containing 682 objectives, was approved in December 2000 by the ACDP and published on the APS website http://www.the-aps.org/education/MedPhysObj/medcor.htm. The identification of the "content" of medical physiology instruction provides the APS and the ACDP with a tool to introduce emerging topics, such as the physiology of aging and gender differences, at a national level. The medical physiology learning objectives project provides a guide for directing current and future medical physiology instruction in the United States.
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 | 0.124 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".