Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to explore the use of a modified nominal group technique (mNGT) to inform the curriculum of a Short Learning Programme for peer mentors in the Bachelor of Clinical Medical Practice (BCMP) program. Methods: An mNGT was used to achieve group consensus. Research participants included academic staff and students of the BCMP program called clinical associate (ClinA) students. Two sessions of the nominal group techniques (NGTs) were conducted. Two questions were presented: (1) what should be the learning outcomes of a Short Learning Programme for peer mentors for ClinA students? and (2) what learning activities should be included to achieve the intended learning outcomes? Results: mNGT groups were both concluded in < 2 h and the costs involved were minimal. The priority outcomes of academic staff were to promote and encourage a positive, inclusive environment to enhance student morale; and to provide insight into the roles that peer mentors should fulfill. The primary objectives of academic staff were to foster and support a welcoming, inclusive atmosphere to boost student morale, as well as to offer guidance on the responsibilities that peer mentors should undertake. The top priorities of students were to provide insight into the role of a ClinA and the personal development of peer mentors. Learning activities suggested included time management and personal growth of peer mentors, “how to be an effective mentor,” and leadership skills. The outcomes formulated by research participants reflected the graduate attributes listed by the University of Pretoria as well as generic attributes described by international scholars. Discussion: A common NGT was an inexpensive and time-saving way to obtain rank-ordered data from research participants. This modified method ensured an equitable and inclusive approach, ensuring buy-in from all stakeholders, and is useful in the development of a curriculum for Short Learning Programmes. Both staff and students converged on common outcomes related to academic, psychosocial, and ClinA role support MeSH Terms: Consensus; Curriculum; Humans; Leadership; Mentors; Students.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".