Establishing an online mentor database for medical students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
authentic ethics-related situations, it facilitates a focus on reflection in order to compare courses of action rather than selecting the most appropriate.In this sense, the CJLT is innovative as it allies cognitive apprenticeship with the development of critical thinking skills.Furthermore, students recognise the ethical conduct that is most coherent with professionalism as identified by experts, but point out that in 'real-life' experiences on hospital wards, conduct can be markedly different.We believe this reflects the hidden curriculum, signalled in the literature as a major impediment to professionalism education.Learning to conciliate espoused ethical conduct and future clinical experience, buttressed by insight into expert ethical decision making, is the chief added value of the CJLT for the meaningful development of professionalism.Finally, the user-friendly aspect of the CJLT is not a trivial matter.The CJLT we have implemented is completed online at times and at a pace determined by each student.Hence, it is truly an effective professionalism-learning tool that can be inserted easily into already heavy study schedules.We are encouraged to introduce the CJLT into residency and continuous professional development.Although it is too early to consider it as an assessment tool, we think it can be used to measure the development of professionalism competence in students over time.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".