Notes From the Field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blinded assessments of technical skills using video-recordings may offer more objective assessments than direct observations. This study seeks to compare these two modalities. Two trained assessors independently assessed 18 central venous catheterization performances by direct observation and video-recorded assessments using two tools. Although sound quality was deemed adequate in all videos, portions of the video for wire handling and drape handling were frequently out of view (n = 13, 72% for wire-handling; n = 17, 94% for drape-handling). There were no differences in summary global rating scores, checklist scores, or pass/fail decisions for either modality (p > 0.05). Inter-rater reliability was acceptable for both modalities. Of the 26 discrepancies identified between direct observation and video-recorded assessments, three discrepancies (12%) were due to inattention during video review, while one (4%) discrepancy was due to inattention during direct observation. In conclusion, although scores did not differ between the two assessment modalities, techniques of video-recording may significantly impact individual items of assessments.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".