Use of WONCA global standards to evaluate family medicine postgraduate education for curriculum development and review in Nepal and Myanmar
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
Family medicine is an integral part of primary care within health systems. Globally, training programmes exhibit a great degree of variability in content and skill acquisition. While this may in part reflect the needs of a given setting, there exists standard criteria that all family medicine programmes should consider core activities. WONCA has provided an open-access list of standards that their expert community considers essential for family medicine (GP) post-graduate training. Evaluation of developing or existing training programmes using these standards can provide insight into the degree of variability, gaps within programmes and equally as important, gaps within recommendations. In collaboration with the host institution, two family medicine programmes in Nepal and Myanmar were evaluated based on WONCA global standards. The results of the evaluation demonstrated that such a process can allow for critical review of curriculum in various stages of development and evaluation. The implications of reviewing training programmes according to WONCA standards can lead to enhanced training world-wide and standardisation of training for post-graduate family medicine.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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