MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098762344 · doi:10.1136/bmjstel-2014-000013

Competency-based simulation education: should competency standards apply for simulation educators?

2015· editorial· en· W2098762344 on OpenAlex

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

VenueBMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning · 2015
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentHealth careMedical educationPsychologyProfessional developmentPatient safetyClinical PracticeMedicineNursingPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The healthcare education landscape is evolving. Recent years have seen a change in conceptualisations of learning, assessment and time-based versus competency-based education (CBE).1 These changes will influence healthcare provider training and ultimately the clinical care they provide to patients. CBE has elevated the discourse surrounding clinical competencies and entrustable professional activities.2 Inherent to this focus on educational outcomes is a renewed attention on the role of formative clinical experiences: how we engage and empower learners in their own education; how we organise workplace-based learning to provide the graded supervision our trainees require while maintaining patient safety; and how we help our trainees maximise learning from clinical practice and progress in their training through robust assessment and feedback mechanisms.2 ,3 This changing landscape places a heavy burden on busy clinician educators who themselves may require significant training and faculty development to translate the emerging educational science into effective clinical teaching practice. The very nature of CBE requires clinical educators to assess learners frequently in a manner that allows reliable and valid inferences across the spectrum of clinical competencies that are required for their specific training programme.1 In addition, assessment of individual learner competencies will occur in workplace settings where clinical care is a team activity. We see a mismatch between a CBE approach we value and strive for and the relative underemphasis of faculty teaching skills required for its effective implementation and outcomes assessment. Without equal and parallel attention to clinical educator training, we fear this disconnect has the potential to undermine the translation of promising advances gleaned from healthcare education research into widespread clinical education. The increasing adoption of healthcare …

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.397 · 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