MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152804931 · doi:10.3402/meo.v7i.4542

Needs Assessment in Postgraduate Medical Education: A Review

2002· review· en· W2152804931 on OpenAlex
Savithiri Ratnapalan, Robert Hilliard

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education Online · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationChartNeeds assessmentContext (archaeology)AuditFocus groupContinuing medical educationMedicineContinuing educationPsychologyPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the concept of needs assessment in continuing medical education is well accepted, there is limited information on needs assessment in postgraduate medical education. We discuss the learning needs of postgraduate trainees and review the various methods of needs assessment such as: questionnaire surveys, interviews, focus groups, chart audits, chart-stimulated recall, standardized patients, and environmental scans in the context of post graduate medical education.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.440 · 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