MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986137923 · doi:10.1007/s10459-015-9593-1

Constructing a validity argument for the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS): a systematic review of validity evidence

2015· review· en· W1986137923 on OpenAlexafffund
Rose Hatala, David A. Cook, Ryan Brydges, Richard E. Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Health Sciences Education · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson CentreSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsFormative assessmentConstruct validityPsycINFOArgument (complex analysis)Evidence-based medicineMEDLINEConstruct (python library)PsychometricsPsychologyApplied psychologyComputer scienceMedicineClinical psychologyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.288
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.592
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2880.592
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.017
Bibliometrics0.0140.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.429 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations170
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Health Sciences EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207