Point-of-Care Assessment of Medical Trainee Competence for Independent Clinical Work
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
BACKGROUND: Clinical supervisors make frequent assessments of medical trainees' competence so they can provide appropriate opportunities for trainees to experience clinical independence. This study explored context-specific assessments of trainees' competence for independent clinical work. METHOD: In Phase One, 88 teaching team members from internal and emergency medicine were observed during clinical activities (216 hours), and 65 participants completed brief interviews. In Phase Two, 36 in-depth interviews were conducted using video vignettes. Data collection and analysis employed grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: Supervisors' assessments of trainee trustworthiness for independent clinical work involved consideration of four dimensions: knowledge/skill, discernment of limitations, truthfulness, and conscientiousness. Supervisors' reliance on language cues as a source of trustworthiness data was revealed. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an initial exploration of context-specific competence assessments, which affect both patient safety and education, and provides a novel framework for study of the links between language use and competence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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