The elusive content of the medical-school curriculum: a method to the madness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major problem for curriculum and course planners is coping simultaneously with the expanding knowledge base and having less time to teach. A widely used solution is to include huge amounts of information in the curriculum. A better solution is to identify a manageable core of relevant knowledge. One way is to begin with program goals and systematically identify content with increasing specificity that would be needed to achieve those goals. Another is the empirical determination of content, which has not been widely attempted. These studies would include experiments and practice analyses. There is a need to mount greater and more rigorous efforts to help advance the scholarship and to provide useful information to curriculum planners. Large-scale, multi-site studies that compare the results from various methods and from different sources will be more useful to medical education generally. In these days of exploding information and technology and greater understanding of how people learn, more than ever, efforts need to be focused on finding the very specific content that will result in the best learning for our 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 | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".