Student Evaluation Practices in Pediatric Clerkships: A Survey of the Medical Schools in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the curriculum changes during the past decade, there is paucity of information regarding the structure and evaluation processes in pediatric clerkships. Information regarding the educational components of the pediatric clerkship and student evaluation practices was obtained from the pediatric clerkship directors via a paper/electronic survey. Completed surveys were received from 97 US and Canadian medical schools and were analyzed. The average length of a clerkship was 7 weeks. Most clerkships required a 4-week ward, a 1-week newborn rotation, and a 2-week ambulatory rotation. Students were evaluated on each component of the clerkship in 93.5% of the programs. All programs evaluated student's clinical performance and fund of knowledge; 85.6% evaluated student's written record. Student's clinical performance was evaluated by direct observation in 57% of the programs. Penalties for failing in clinical performance were harsher. In 56% of programs, a student failing in clinical performance failed the entire clerkship in contrast to 21.8% or 7% of the programs where a student failed the entire clerkship if they failed in the examination for the fund of knowledge or written record evaluation, respectively. The survey demonstrated a fair amount of consistency in clerkships across programs when compared with data obtained in 1981 and 1986. There was a noticeable increase in the well-baby nursery rotation; however, there was a decline in direct observation to assess physical examination or clinical performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".