MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900675991 · doi:10.17496/kmer.2017.19.2.63

Concept and Development of Resident Training Program for General Competencies

2017· article· en· W2900675991 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sun Woo Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueKorean Medical Education Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Training systemMedical educationPsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resident training programs in South Korea lag far behind that of advanced countries. Given the problems the current system in South Korea has, it is time to consider a new resident training system, resident training for general competencies. Training for the general competencies was practiced in medical fields in advanced countries such as the USA, Canada, and the UK as early as 20 years ago. This system has rendered itself a key component of resident training. Although a few theoretical procedures on general competencies have been practiced in South Korea, the awareness of this concept is still very weak, and the application of the theory to actual training is a long way off from becoming effective. It is urgent for South Korea to adopt competency- and outcome-based training for general competencies. To this end, the knowledge of the concept of this type of training should be improved. Also, the system should be carefully designed to cover a doctor’s whole career, and be applied immediately. The competency- and outcome-based training for general competencies is a system that assures high level qualifications. It reflects the needs of our society under the recognition that a professional organization should be committed and accountable in order to respond to social demands. As the benefits of the new training system reach the public and medical care consumers, training-related expenses should be borne by social costs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKorean Medical Education ReviewSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207