MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155843659 · doi:10.1136/ebm.6.5.133

Creating knowledge management skills in primary care residents: a description of a new pathway to evidence-based practice in the community

2001· article· en· W2155843659 on OpenAlexaff
M. Blair Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary careKnowledge managementPsychologyMedical educationMedicineFamily medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For several years, I have coordinated a critical appraisal course for residents. Participants, who were organised initially as a traditional journal club, would gather weekly and review an important research paper that either had recently been published or had been found during a Medline search while attempting to answer a question that arose during clinic. The housestaff consistently rated the course highly and appeared to be happy with it. When I ran into them after they were in practice, however, they would frequently reminisce fondly about “the days when we had time to read journals.” As for many educational interventions during residency, the traditional journal club seemed appropriate but unfortunately did not fit with “real world” practice. Several major factors influence the uptake of the practice of evidence-based medicine in primary care, including time constraints and the volume of clinical literature.1–4 However, several recent developments have made tackling these obstacles possible: high quality pre-appraised evidence resources; multi-intervention continuing education models that fit the learners' needs, setting, and social environment; and improved technology that makes delivering knowledge to the point of care possible. After considering these factors, I arrived at a conclusion similar to that of other evidence-based medicine proponents,5—that evidence-based clinicians of the future may …

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

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

Citations59
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207