MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2390074615 · doi:10.1097/ceh.0000000000000015

Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education Intervention Guideline Series

2015· article· en· W2390074615 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thomas J. Van Hoof, Rachel Grant, Joanna Sajdlowska, Mary Bell, Craig Campbell, Lois Colburn, David Davis, Todd Dorman, Michael A. Fischer, Tanya Horsley, Virginia Jacobs-Halsey, Gabrielle Kane, Constance LeBlanc, Jocelyn Lockyer, Donald E. Moore, Robert Morrow, Curtis A. Olson, Scott Reeves, Joan Sargeant, Ivan Silver, David C. Thomas, Mary G. Turco, Simon Kitto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyGuidelineIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionMedical educationContinuing medical educationMedicineNursingSet (abstract data type)Academic detailingContinuing educationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education commissioned a study to clarify and, if possible, to standardize the terminology for a set of important educational interventions. In the form of a guideline, this article describes one such intervention, interprofessional education (IPE), which is a common intervention in health professions education. IPE is an opportunity for individuals of multiple professions to interact to learn together, to break down professional silos, and to achieve interprofessional learning outcomes in the service of high-value patient care. Based on a review of recent evidence and a facilitated discussion with US and Canadian experts, we describe IPE, its terminology, and other important information about the intervention. We encourage leaders and researchers to consider and to build on this guideline as they plan, implement, evaluate, and report IPE efforts. Clear and consistent use of terminology is imperative, along with complete and accurate descriptions of interventions, to improve the use and study of IPE.

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 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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0140.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.020

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.477 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Continuing Education in the Health ProfessionsSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207