“Formulation wars”: a novel formulation curriculum for residents and faculty
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
Biopsychosocial formulation remains an important skill for both residents and faculty. If it is not taught early and adequately, then residents fail to develop this skill. Despite a number of evidence-based teaching tools, residents continue to voice concern about when and how formulation is being taught in training programs. A survey in Canada showed that residents were dissatisfied with the current “status quo”. Structured teaching was deemed important; as was hearing supervisors formulate. Small group teaching was valued and early exposure was also considered beneficial. The purpose of our paper is to demonstrate a novel technique for teaching biopsychosocial formulation to psychiatry residents of all training levels. We detail a workshop we developed for both residents and faculty that combines faculty formulations with small and large group work. We recognize that this initial workshop was a small first step in changing the culture of formulation teaching. More studies are needed to determine exactly which teaching methods should be employed in a more robust and structured formulation curriculum.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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