Validation of a Canadian curriculum in obstetric medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comprehensive curriculum for obstetric medicine was created through review and synthesis of several existing sources including a recent textbook, published curricula and a review of cases seen in a specialized clinical setting. The preliminary curriculum document then underwent local validation and reformulation of educational objectives with reference to the CanMEDS framework promoted by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. This draft 'Canadian' Curriculum Content Validation Instrument, covering 34 medical conditions, was then distributed to a cohort of 29 Canadian obstetric internists (the study group) for review. All responders gave feedback on each of the 402 curricular items, with a high level of inter-rater agreement. A subgroup was subsequently convened (n = 15) and Delphi methodology was used to review the major recommendations from the group, as well as nine additional problematic items, achieving a consensus on 38/43 survey items (88%). The final validated document was presented at the North American Society of Obstetric Medicine meeting in April 2010 in Toronto, Canada and distributed to study group members for local adaptation and implementation. Wider dissemination is planned in the near future.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.074 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".