MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883131882 · doi:10.7759/cureus.3053

Recommendations for the Development and Implementation of a Residents as Teachers Curriculum

2018· review· en· W2883131882 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

VenueCureus · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCurriculumMedical educationFaculty developmentCurriculum developmentMedical schoolProfessional developmentPedagogyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teaching junior residents, medical students and other hospital staff is an essential component of a resident physician's job. While resident physicians provide much of the teaching for their junior learners, few residents are provided with formal training on how to teach effectively. Although some Residents as Teachers (RAT) curricula do exist, there is no consensus on how the curriculum should be administered, content it should include, and how to assess its effectiveness. We seek to provide guidelines and recommendations applicable to any residency program seeking to begin or improve upon a RAT curriculum and provide suggestions on how to assess its effectiveness.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.392 · 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