MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943714297 · doi:10.12968/hmed.2019.80.5.285

Use of work-based assessments in postgraduate medical education

2019· article· en· W2943714297 on OpenAlexaff
Sulaiman Alazzawi, James R. Berstock

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Hospital Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWork (physics)Variety (cybernetics)Medical educationValue (mathematics)Focus (optics)Engineering ethicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Work-based assessments are ubiquitous in postgraduate medical training in the UK. This article discusses the variety of these assessments and explores barriers to their use and solutions for improving the educational value of these tools for adult learners. The focus should be on feedback and learning rather than assessment, and this may promote discussion of more challenging scenarios where the opportunity for learning is greater. Mobile devices may help reduce the administrative, geographical and time constraints of completing work-based assessments.

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 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)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Hospital MedicineSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207