MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589649573 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000002956

The Evolution of Surgical Simulation: The Current State and Future Avenues for Plastic Surgery Education

2017· article· en· W2589649573 on OpenAlex
Roy Kazan, Shantale Cyr, Thomas M. Hemmerling, Samuel J. Lin, Mirko S. Gilardino

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsQuebec Rehabilitation Research Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurrent (fluid)State (computer science)MedicineComputer scienceEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alongside the ongoing evolution of surgical training toward a competency-based paradigm has come the need to reevaluate the role of surgical simulation in residency. Simulators offer the ability for trainees to acquire specific skills and for educators to objectively assess the progressive development of these skills. In this article, the authors discuss the historical evolution of surgical simulation, with a particular focus on its past and present role in plastic surgery education. The authors also discuss the future steps required to further advance plastic surgery simulation in an effort to continue to train highly competent plastic surgery graduates.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.281 · 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