MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982087319 · doi:10.12968/bjom.2002.10.12.751

A problem-based learning approach to midwifery

2002· article· en· W1982087319 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patricia McNiven, Karyn Kaufman, Helen McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Midwifery · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumProblem-based learningContext (archaeology)Medical educationAutodidacticismObstetricsMedicinePsychologyMathematics educationPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1993, McMaster University implemented the first midwifery education programme in Ontario, Canada. A 4–year, direct-entry baccalaureate programme was established and reflects the philosophy of midwifery with a focus on normal, healthy childbearing. Self-directed and problem-based learning (PBL) are integral parts of the programme. The authors selected a PBL format because of the benefits demonstrated in medical education. The use of PBL, as a method of instruction, has been found to enhance clinical reasoning skills, knowledge acquisition and self-directed learning patterns (Woods, 1994). A PBL curricula also provides students with an earlier opportunity to acquire information in context (Woodward, 1989). Students from a traditional curricula, compared with students from a PBL curricula, have been found to be less able to use what they have learned (Gonella et al, 1970). The development and implementation of a PBL midwifery curricula are described in this paper. Graduates of the programme reported that they enjoyed the small group tutorials and found it to be one of the most effective aspects of learning in the programme, second only to clinical placements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of MidwiferySame topicProblem and Project Based LearningFrench-language works237,207