MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889166662 · doi:10.1097/ceh.0000000000000218

Recommendations for Publishing Assessment-Based Articles in JCEHP

2018· article· en· W2889166662 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingPublicationContinuing educationMedical educationPsychologyOutcome (game theory)Point (geometry)MedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common research study in assessment involves measuring the amount of knowledge, skills, or attitudes that participants' possess. In the continuing professional development arena, a researcher might also want to assess this information as an outcome of an educational activity. At some point, the researcher may wish to publish the results from these assessment-based studies. The goal of this commentary is to highlight common problems that could negatively influence the likelihood of an assessment-based manuscript being published.

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)0.317
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.767
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3170.767
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.013
Bibliometrics0.0410.048
Science and technology studies0.0110.013
Scholarly communication0.0460.040
Open science0.0180.016
Research integrity0.0820.037
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1090.089

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.423 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Continuing Education in the Health ProfessionsSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207