Abstracts From the Proceedings of the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Association of Directors of Medical Student Education in Psychiatry (ADMSEP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 31st Annual Meeting of the Association of Directors of Medical Student Education in Psychiatry (ADMSEP) was held from June 23 to June 25, 2005, at the Monterey Plaza Hotel and Spa in Monterey, California. Approximately 100 registrants from 60 medical schools in the United States and Canada were in attendance. Although the plenary sessions and workshops covered a wide range of educational topics, there was a focus on assessment of students' clinical skills Keynote speeches were given by Richard Hawkins, deputy vice president, assessment programs, at the National Board of Medical Examiners and by Brian Hodges, director of the Wilson Center for Research in Education at the University of Toronto. Dr. Hawkins presented an overview of United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) exam with emphasis on the measures taken to ensure fairness and consistency. He also provided an update on examinee performance to date. Dr. Hodges discussed the development and spread of the use of Objective Structured Clinical Evaluations (OSCEs), along with current best practices with respect to simulation and the use of standardized patients, measuring student exam performance, and issues regarding the validity of the OSCE tool with respect to the novice, intermediate, and expert examinee. He also discussed particular features of the OSCE relevant to psychiatry. The abstracts presented in these proceedings were chosen for their general appeal to medical student educators and because they are representative of the type of educational research undertaken by ADMSEP members and colleagues. To appreciate the breadth of topics cover at the meeting, the reader is referred to the full program on the "Meetings" pages of the ADMSEP Web site, www.admsep.org.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.209 | 0.094 |
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".