MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The JCST trainee survey: highlights of the first year's results

2013· article· en· W2006001086 on OpenAlex
Ian Eardley, Gillian Haddock, M.J. Gough, Mike Bradburn, Hyacinth Lewis

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

VenueBulletin of The Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsNOSM University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality assuranceCurriculumMedical educationQuality (philosophy)PsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In July 2010, the Joint Commitee on Surgical Training (JCST) launched a review of its quality assurance functions, which included the development of a new survey specific to surgical trainees. The survey was developed in conjunction with the Confederation of Postgraduate Schools of Surgery and aimed to provide detailed information on the quality of surgical training in the UK and to standardise the information from the different schools of surgery, thereby allowing some comparison between training schemes and units. A 20-question survey was developed for all surgical specialties, while a more detailed survey with questions relating to curriculum delivery was piloted in core surgical training and paediatric surgery.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · 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