MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314761875 · doi:10.19144/1911-1606.9.4.4

Medical Education and Duty Hours

2014· article· en· W2314761875 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Peter G. Brindley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReactionaryDutyMedicineStatement (logic)Mission statementPublic relationsMedical educationLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Society of Internal Medicine has a noble mission statement that bears repeating. The goal is to “go beyond simple transmission of information, and to make a lasting impact on the knowledge, skills and attitudes of clinicians and future clinicians; to narrow the theory-to-practice gap; to improve the health of our patients and of all Canadians.” I agree wholeheartedly; in fact, I presume we all agree. How could you not? But the devil is always in the details. What does this really mean for how we prepare future doctors? More contentiously, what does this mean for duty hours? This (reactionary?) author believes it is worth routinely examining whether we live up to our lofty mission. If not, then we should accept a few inconvenient truths.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of General Internal MedicineSame topicHospital Admissions and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207