MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CurrMIT

2003· review· en· W2026126069 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Brownell Anderson, Lisa LaCourse, Robert Allen, Chris Candler, Terri Cameron, Debra Lafferty

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMedical educationDemographicsIdentification (biology)Medical schoolComputer scienceCurriculum mappingCurriculum developmentPsychologyMedicinePedagogySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The AAMC Curriculum Management & Information Tool (CurrMIT) is a relational database containing curriculum information from medical schools throughout the United States and Canada. CurrMIT can be used to document details of instruction, such as outcome objectives, resources, content, educational methods, assessment methods, and educational sites, which are being employed in curricula. CurrMIT contains basic information about nearly all required courses and clerkships being offered in the United States and Canada. The database contains descriptions of more than 15,000 courses and clerkships; approximately 115,000 "sessions"--e.g., lectures, labs, small-group discussions--and more than 400,000 keywords and word strings documenting the specific details of instruction associated with the courses, clerkships, and sessions. Some specific uses that schools have made of CurrMIT include review of demographics among patient cases being used in a case-based curriculum; comparisons of educational experiences between two geographically separate clinical campuses; and identification of unplanned redundancies and gaps in curricular content. CurrMIT has been designed to accommodate data from virtually any medical school curriculum; "traditional 2+2" curricula, problem-based curricula, and systems-based curricula, and variations of each of these, have been entered in CurrMIT by medical schools. The authors give an overview of the technology upon which the system is built and the training materials and workshops that the AAMC provides to faculty to support CurrMIT's use, and end by describing enhancements being planned for the system.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.360 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207