MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004560342 · doi:10.1111/acem.12043

Experience Curves as an Organizing Framework for Deliberate Practice in Emergency Medicine Learning

2012· article· en· W2004560342 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

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForgettingLearning curveCompetence (human resources)MedicineRepresentation (politics)Dreyfus model of skill acquisitionMedical educationCognitive psychologyPsychologySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deliberate practice is an important skill-training strategy in emergency medicine (EM) education. Learning curves display the relationship between practice and proficiency. Forgetting curves show the opposite, and demonstrate how skill decays over time when it is not reinforced. Using examples of published studies of deliberate practice in EM we list the properties of learning and forgetting curves and suggest how they can be combined to create experience curves: a longitudinal representation of the relationship between practice, skill acquisition, and decay over time. This framework makes explicit the need to avoid a piecemeal, episodic approach to skill practice and assessment in favor of more emphasis on what can be done to improve durability of competence over time. The authors highlight the implications for both educators and education researchers.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.399 · 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