Why do physicians volunteer to be OSCE examiners?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recruitment of physician examiners for an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) can be difficult. The following study will explore reasons why physicians volunteer their time to be OSCE examiners. A questionnaire was collected from 110 examiners including a fourth year formative student OSCE (SO) (n=49), formative internal medicine OSCE (IM) (n=21) and the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Exam Part II (MCCQE II) (n=40). A 5-point Likert scale was used. Statements with high mean ratings overall included: enjoy being an examiner (4.05), gain insights into learners' skills and knowledge (4.27), and examine out of a sense of duty (4.10). The MCC participants produced higher ratings (p<0.05). Overall, OSCE examiners volunteer their time because they enjoy the experience, feel a sense of duty and gain insight into learners' skills and knowledge. The MCC examiners appear to value the experience more. The ability to provide feedback and the provision of CME credits were not significant factors for increasing examiner satisfaction.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.041 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".