MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986423456 · doi:10.1007/s00268-007-9143-y

Objective Assessment of Technical Performance

2007· review· en· W1986423456 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Surgery · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbdominal surgeryVascular surgeryCardiac surgeryCardiothoracic surgeryMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technical skills are essential to the practice of surgery. They can be taught in the operating room and in the surgical skills laboratory. The use of simulators allows the development of reproducible curricula with measurement of performance using objective metrics. The goal of those designing metrics for the simulation laboratory should be to establish measures that are consistent with those of high quality surgery in the operating room. Once these metrics have been shown to be reliable, valid, practical to use, and meaningful to the learner, they can form the basis of a learning program based on the acquisition of proficiency. Performance in the skills laboratory should ultimately be predictive of performance in the clinical setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.267 · 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