MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742126603 · doi:10.36834/cmej.36858

Watering CanMEDS flowers

2017· article· en· W2742126603 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sarah Potts Voll, Taufik A. Valiante

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Education Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutKey (lock)Medical educationMedical professionMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceClinical psychologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We expand on the discourse related to nature surrounding Canadian medical training and the CanMEDS flower. We advance the notion that a major contributor to burnout is the increasing complexity and segregation of not only the medical profession, but society as a whole, leading to choice overload and an overemphasis on complex, data driven, rational decision making. We then propose that the key to watering CanMEDS flowers and preventing physician burnout lies in getting back to the basics of human behaviour.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0270.020
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.371 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Education JournalSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207