MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141489115 · doi:10.1007/s10897-009-9216-1

Genetic Counseling Practice Analysis

2009· article· en· W2141489115 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heather Hampel, Robin E. Grubs, Carol S. Walton, Emma Nguyen, Daniel H. Breidenbach, Steve Nettles, Meagan Corliss, Stéphanie Fox, Susan Hiraki, Lisa Ku, Whitney Neufeld‐Kaiser, Bronson D. Riley, Jamie Taylor, LuAnn Weik

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Genetic Counseling · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredentialingCertificationGenetic counselingGenetic testingContent analysisMedical educationMedicineFamily medicineBoard certificationPsychologyPolitical scienceGeneticsBiologyContinuing educationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) performed a genetic counseling practice analysis (PA) to determine the content of the certification examination. The ABGC-appointed PA Advisory Committee worked with psychometricians to develop a survey which was distributed to 2,038 genetic counselors in the United States and Canada. The survey was also accessible on the ABGC website. Multiple criteria were used to establish the significance of the tasks included in the survey. A total of 677 responses were used in the analysis, representing a 37.1% corrected response rate. Five major content domains with 143 tasks were identified in the PA. New certification test specifications were developed on the basis of PA results and will be used in developing future examination forms. In keeping with credentialing standards, ABGC plans to conduct a PA on a regular basis so that the content of the examination reflects current practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.279 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations31
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Genetic CounselingSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207