MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2184804741 · doi:10.1007/s40037-015-0231-7

Guidelines: the do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education

2015· article· en· W2184804741 on OpenAlexaff
Janet Lefroy, Chris Watling, Pim W. Teunissen, Paul L.P. Brand

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Medical Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentSet (abstract data type)Inclusion (mineral)GuidelineProcess (computing)Medical educationSupervisorPsychologyEvidence-based medicineComputer scienceMedicineAlternative medicineMathematics educationSocial psychologyPolitical sciencePathologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.116
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.425
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1160.425
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.009
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0140.013
Open science0.0170.011
Research integrity0.0330.035
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.014

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.402 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations341
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on Medical Education→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→