MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100125105 · doi:10.1080/01421590120090970

A systematic process for content review in a problem-based learning curriculum

2001· review· en· W2100125105 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Solomon, E. Lynne Geddes

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Teacher · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumProcess (computing)Task (project management)Systematic processMedical educationSystematic reviewClinical PracticeComputer scienceCurriculum developmentPsychologyMEDLINEEngineering ethicsMedicinePedagogyPolitical scienceNursingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integrative nature of a problem-based curriculum provides unique challenges to the task of maintaining a current curriculum. This paper describes a systematic process for content review in a problem-based curriculum, which utilizes consultation among students, faculty and the clinical community, use of external reviewers and a faculty consensus process. Advantages of the process include increased communication and cooperation among faculty and development of a curriculum that balances the need for preparing students for new evidence-based practice with preparing them for clinical reality.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical TeacherSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207