Assessing Assessing! An Examination of the Impact of the New RANZCP by-Laws for Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: With the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists’ new by-laws for training coming into effect in late 2003 and early 2004 for New Zealand and Australian trainees, respectively, the authors set out to determine the impact of the various proposed changes upon assessment. Methods: The relevant medical databases and websites were explored and the various colleges and examination boards in Australia and New Zealand, the UK and Canada were consulted. Results: The Fellowship examination in Australia and New Zealand is due to undergo significant changes in terms of its structure and methods of assessment. The changes borrow components from contemporary international systems and aim to shift the emphasis of training and examination to earlier in the postgraduate years, with trainees ultimately having greater flexibility in terms of deciding when to sit for these. As yet, there is little specific information for candidates as regards the exact format and content of some components of the examinations and it is unclear whether the new system has been evaluated sufficiently. Conclusions: Many of the proposed changes bear similarities to training structures and examination systems in Canada and the UK. It is suggested that the ‘mistakes’ of others should be learned from, and that a considered and deliberate approach is taken to the introduction of new examinations, appraising their merit and acknowledging the difficulties that change and uncertainty create.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".