From See One Do One, to See a Good One Do a Better One: Learning Physical Examination Skills Through Peer Observation
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: Learning and mastering the skills required to execute physical exams is of great importance and should be fostered early during medical training. Observing peers has been shown to positively influence the acquisition of psychomotor skills. PURPOSE: The current study investigated the influence of peer observation on the acquisition of psychomotor skills required to execute a physical examination. METHODS: Second-year medical students (N=194) learned the neurological physical examination for low back pain in groups of three. Each student learned and performed the physical examination while the other students observed. Analyses compared the impact of the quantity and the quality of observed performances on students' learning of the physical examination skills. RESULTS: Students benefited from observing peers while they executed their examination. Moreover, observing a high-performing peer increased the acquisition of physical examination skills. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that group learning activities that allow students to observe their peers during physical examination should be favored.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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