MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803033711 · doi:10.1002/aet2.10103

Clinical Cadavers as a Simulation Resource for Procedural Learning

2018· article· en· W2803033711 on OpenAlexaffabout
George Kovács, Richard M. Levitan, Rob Sandeski

Bibliographic record

VenueAEM Education and Training · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Computer scienceMedical simulationSimulation trainingFidelitySimulationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"See one, do one, teach one" remains an unofficial, unsanctioned framework for procedural skill learning in medicine. Appropriately, medical educators have sought alternative simulation venues for students to safely learn their craft. With the end goal of ensuring competence, educational programming will require the use of valid simulation with appropriate fidelity. While cadavers have been used for teaching anatomy for hundreds of years, more recently they are being repurposed as a "high-fidelity" procedural skill learning simulation resource. Newly deceased, previously frozen, and soft-preserved cadavers, such as those used in Baltimore and Halifax, produce clinical cadavers with high physical and functional fidelity that can serve as simulators for performing many high-acuity procedures for which there is otherwise limited clinical or simulation opportunities to practice. While access and cost may limit the use of cadavers for simulation, there are opportunities for sharing resources to provide an innovative procedural learning experience using the oldest of medical simulation assets, the human body.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.014

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations93
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAEM Education and TrainingSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207