Identifying the policy implications of competency-based education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At their 2009 consensus conference, the International CBME Collaborators proposed a number of central tenets of CBME in order to advance the field of medical education. Although the proposed conceptualization of CBME offers several advantages and opportunities, including a greater emphasis on outcomes, a mechanism for the promotion of learner-centred curricula, and the potential to move away from time-based training and credentialing in medicine, it is also associated with several significant barriers to adoption. This paper examines the concepts of CBME through a broad educational policy lens, identifying considerations for medical education leaders, health care institutions, and policy-makers at both the meso (program, institutional) and macro (health care system, inter-jurisdictional, and international) levels. Through this analysis, it is clear that CBME is associated with a number of complex challenges and questions, and cannot be considered in isolation from the complex systems in which it functions. Much more work is needed to engage stakeholders in dialogue, to debate the issues, and to identify possible solutions.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".