The risks and benefits of being a young female adolescent standardised patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To follow the progress of young female adolescents, as risk-taking standardised patients (SPs), and to monitor for adverse affects that role-playing may have on the adolescents. METHODS: A prospective design was used in which 11 female adolescents, aged 13-15 years, were recruited from 2 schools. The adolescents were trained to portray risk-taking individuals with a medical condition and were interviewed with their SP mother by final-year medical students 1-3 times a month over 6-14 months. A control group was selected from both schools (n = 6). Main outcome measures were pre- and post-interviews using standardised questionnaires [Achenbach's Youth Self-Report (YSR) and Piers Harris Children's Self Concept Scale (SCS),] and focus groups. RESULTS: The adolescent group simulated 111 interviews (mean per adolescent 10.1, SD = 6.2) each lasting 60-70 minutes. QUANTITATIVE DATA: The pre- and post-scores from the YSR and SCS demonstrated no significant differences within the SP study participants or between the control group vs. the study group. FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS: The initial focus group acted as a debriefing exercise and prompted the adolescents to request that they come out of their role when giving feedback. Subsequent focus group discussion was around the medical student performance and their family doctors. CONCLUSION: Adolescent females showed no adverse effects when used extensively to portray risk-taking SPs. The focus groups provided the adolescents with an opportunity to debrief together. The adolescent SPs reported benefiting from this study but requested unanimously that they come "out of character" when giving feedback to the medical students.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".