Adolescent Standardized Patients: Method of Selection and Assessment of Benefits and Risks
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our psychiatric Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) group wishes to develop adolescent psychiatry OSCE stations. The literature regarding adolescent standardized patient (SP) selection methods and simulation effects, however, offered limited assurance that such adolescents would not experience adverse simulation effects. PURPOSE: Evaluation of adolescent SP selection methods and simulation effects for low- and high-stress roles. METHOD: A two-component (employment-psychological) SP selection method was used. Carefully selected SPs were assigned across three conditions: low-stress medical role, high-stress psychosocial role, and wait list control. Qualitative and quantitative measures were used to assess simulation effects. RESULTS: Our selection method excluded 21% (7% employment and 14% psychological) of SP applicants. For SP participants, beneficial effects included acquisition of job skills and satisfaction in making an important contribution to society. SP reactions of discomfort to roles were reported. Long-term adverse effects were not identified. CONCLUSIONS: A two-component adolescent SP selection method is recommended. Adolescent SP benefits outweigh risks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it