MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2798133539 · doi:10.15694/mep.2018.0000085.1

Outcomes are what matter: Competency-based medical education gets us to our goal

2018· editorial· en· W2798133539 on OpenAlex

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

VenueMedEdPublish · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYCriticismCurriculumMedical educationPsychologyMedical professionEngineering ethicsPedagogyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Health professions education is undergoing a major paradigm shift to competency-based medical education. When shifts in thinking are profound and result in transformations of existing paradigms, there is often an accompanying criticism. While competency-based medical education is an evidence guided change in approach to curriculum and assessment, it is not immune to critique and concerns. Some criticisms are valid, and must be addressed as competency-based medical education is implemented; other concerns raised about competency-based medical education highlight the importance of clarity in language and purpose when discussing new paradigms. In this commentary, we aim to offer a balanced view of competency-based medical education by presenting an overview of the origins and conceptual assumptions of competency-based medical education and acknowledging valid criticisms of the approach.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.330 · 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