MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062440483 · doi:10.1080/01421590802225770

Twelve tips for blueprinting

2008· article· en· W2062440483 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvain Coderre, Wayne Woloschuk, Kevin McLaughlin

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Teacher · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlueprintMedical educationMEDLINEMedicinePsychologyEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Content validity is a requirement of every evaluation and is achieved when the evaluation content is congruent with the learning objectives and the learning experiences. Congruence between these three pillars of education can be facilitated by blueprinting. AIMS: Here we describe an efficient process for creating a blueprint and explain how to use this tool to guide all aspects of course creation and evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: A well constructed blueprint is a valuable tool for medical educators. In addition to validating evaluation content, a blueprint can also be used to guide selection of curricular content and learning experiences.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.203
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.203
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.016
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0060.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.025

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations95
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical TeacherSame topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207