MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018305892 · doi:10.1177/155335060501200410

The Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery at McGill University

2005· article· en· W2018305892 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gerald M. Fried

Bibliographic record

VenueSurgical Innovation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInvasive surgeryGeneral surgerySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surgical skills and simulation centers have been developed in recent years to meet the educational needs of practicing surgeons, residents, and students. The rapid pace of innovation in surgical procedures and technology, as well as the overarching desire to enhance patient safety, have driven the development of simulation technology and new paradigms for surgical education. McGill University has implemented an innovative approach to surgical education in the field of minimally invasive surgery. The goal is to measure surgical performance in the operating room using practical, reliable, and valid metrics, which allow the educational needs of the learner to be established and enable feedback and performance to be tracked over time. The GOALS system and the MISTELS program have been developed to measure operative performance and minimally invasive surgical technical skills in the inanimate skills lab, respectively. The MISTELS laparoscopic simulation-training program has been incorporated as the manual skills education and evaluation component of the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery program distributed by the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and the American College of Surgeons.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1400.023

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurgical InnovationSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207