MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007478433 · doi:10.1002/chp.169

Using focus groups for strategic planning in a CME unit

2008· article· en· W2007478433 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jatinder Takhar, Jane Tipping

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLeadership and Management in Organizations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuiteUnit (ring theory)Library scienceFocus groupMedical educationMedicineFamily medicineManagementSociologyHistoryPsychologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1 Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada 2 University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Email: [email protected] Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, 100 Collip Circle, Suite 227, Mogenson Bldg, Research Park, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6G 4X8, Canada

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)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.112
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.112
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0040.012
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.005

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Continuing Education in the Health ProfessionsSame topicLeadership and Management in OrganizationsFrench-language works237,207