Is Undergraduate Performance Predictive of Postgraduate Performance?
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: The continuity of undergraduate to postgraduate training suggests that performance in medical school should predict performance later in residency. PURPOSE: The goal is to determine whether undergraduate performance is predictive of postgraduate performance. METHODS: Residency program directors assessed the performance of medical school graduates (Classes 2004-2006) at the end of the 1st postgraduate year. Measures of undergraduate performance were retrieved including grade point averages, clerkship in-training evaluation reports, and the total score on the Medical Council of Canada Part 1 exam. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 242 (81.5%) graduates. Postgraduate performance consisted of two reliable factors (clinical acumen and human sensitivity) that explained 78% of the variance. Correlations between undergraduate and the two postgraduate measures were low (.03-.31). CONCLUSIONS: Measures of undergraduate performance appear to be poor predictors of performance in residency that consisted of two primary dimensions (clinical acumen and human sensitivity).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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