Learning from clinical work: the roles of learning cues and credibility judgements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: How learners interpret their clinical experiences to create meaningful learning has not been well studied. We explored experiences considered by doctors to be influential in their learning in order to better understand this process. METHODS: Using a grounded theory approach, we interviewed 22 academic doctors who had been in practice for ≤ 5 years. Participants were asked to reflect on experiences they considered to have been influential during their training. Constant comparative analysis for emerging themes was conducted iteratively with data collection. RESULTS: A model of clinical learning emerged in which the clinical work itself is central. As they observe and participate in clinical work, learners can attend to a variety of sources of information that facilitate the interpretation of the experience and the construction of knowledge from it. These 'learning cues' include feedback, role models, clinical outcomes, patient or family responses, and comparisons with peers. The integration of a cue depends on the learner's judgement of its credibility. Certain cues, such as clinical outcomes or feedback from patients, are seen as innately credible, whereas other cues, particularly feedback from supervisors, are subjected to critical judgement. CONCLUSIONS: Learners make complex judgements regarding the credibility of information about clinical performance. Credibility judgements influence the learning that arises from the clinical experience. Further understanding of how such judgements are made could guide educators in providing credible information to learners.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it