MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079403335 · doi:10.1192/pb.29.2.67

Organising a mock OSCE for the MRCPsych Part I examination

2005· article· en· W2079403335 on OpenAlex
Iain Pryde, Amrit Sachar, Stephanie Ruth Young, Amanda Hukin, Teifion Davies, Ranga Rao

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Bulletin · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObjective structured clinical examinationEnthusiasmMedical educationPsychologyComputer scienceMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims and Method With the changes introduced recently to the Part I clinical examination, trainers will be expected to modify MRCPsych course teaching accordingly. The aim of this paper is to describe the procedure for organising a mock objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) for MRCPsych trainees. Results Prior to the introduction of the new OSCE, we organised an authentic mock OSCE for our trainees. We have now run three consecutive mock examinations which have been successfully evaluated. Clinical Implications A well-organised mock OSCE requires significant investment in terms of planning, resources and enthusiasm, but can have a potentially beneficial impact on and preparation for the real OSCE and training in general.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.286 · 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