Competency-based medical education: implications for undergraduate programs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in educational thinking and in medical program accreditation provide an opportunity to reconsider approaches to undergraduate medical education. Current developments in competency-based medical education (CBME), in particular, present both possibilities and challenges for undergraduate programs. CBME does not specify particular learning strategies or formats, but rather provides a clear description of intended outcomes. This approach has the potential to yield authentic curricula for medical practice and to provide a seamless linkage between all stages of lifelong learning. At the same time, the implementation of CBME in undergraduate education poses challenges for curriculum design, student assessment practices, teacher preparation, and systemic institutional change, all of which have implications for student learning. Some of the challenges of CBME are similar to those that can arise in the implementation of any integrated program, while others are specific to the adoption of outcome frameworks as an organizing principle for curriculum design. This article reviews a number of issues raised by CBME in the context of undergraduate programs and provides examples of best practices that might help to address these issues.
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 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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it