Assessment of professionalism: Recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 25 years, professionalism has emerged as a substantive and sustained theme, the operationalization and measurement of which has become a major concern for those involved in medical education. However, how to go about establishing the elements that constitute appropriate professionalism in order to assess them is difficult. Using a discourse analysis approach, the International Ottawa Conference Working Group on Professionalism studied some of the dominant notions of professionalism, and in particular the implications for its assessment. The results presented here reveal different ways of thinking about professionalism that can lead towards a multi-dimensional, multi-paradigmatic approach to assessing professionalism at different levels: individual, inter-personal, societal-institutional. Recommendations for research about professionalism assessment are also presented.
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 | 0.079 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".