Was a breach of examination security unfair in an objective structured clinical examination? A critical incident
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One-third of a class of students was inadvertently given the names of stations immediately prior to an OSCE and two-thirds of the class were not. This provided an opportunity to explore student perceptions of fairness and to explore any effect of this cueing. The subjects were medical students undertaking an end of fifth year multidisciplinary OSCE. OSCE score data from the 20 students who had received the information were compared with those of the 40 students who did not. We also compared their performance on other assessments to determine whether the two groups were comparable. The overall OSCE mark was not significantly different between the two groups. There were significant differences between groups on four stations but this was not in a consistent direction that advantaged one group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in their performance on the other examinations. This inadvertent security breach had no systematic effect on student OSCE station scores. This incident provided a valuable opportunity to admit error, approach it rationally and restore any resulting breach of trust.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.310 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".