Cognitive metaphors of expertise and knowledge: prospects and limitations for medical education
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Many approaches to the study of expertise in medical education have their roots most strongly established in the traditional cognitive psychology literature. As such, they take a common approach to the construction of expertise and frame their questions in a common way. This paper reflects on a few of the paradigmatic assumptions that have 'come along for the ride' with the traditional cognitive approach, and explores what might have been left out as a consequence. METHODS: We examine the operational definition of 'expert' as it has evolved using the traditional cognitive paradigm and we explore some alternative definitions and constructions of expert performance that have arisen in parallel education research paradigms. We address 3 inter-related aspects of expertise as manifested in the traditional cognitive approach: the construction of the expert as a (routine) diagnostician; the construction of the developmental process as the (automatic and un-reflective) accrual of resources through experience, and the construction of accrued knowledge as a relatively static resource that is subsequently used and built upon with further experience. CONCLUSIONS: We hope that, by highlighting these issues, we may begin to marry the strengths of the traditional cognitive paradigm with the strengths of these other paradigms and expand the scope of cognitive research in medical expertise.
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 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 | 0.311 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it