MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966344867

Development of a new technology-based learning tool to promote the uptake of clinical practice guidelines on the management of neck pain in chiropractic teaching faculty

2018· dissertation· en· W2966344867 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leslie Verville

Bibliographic record

Venuee-scholar@UOIT (University of Ontario Institute of Technology) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChiropracticNeck painMedicineMedical educationClinical PracticeAlternative medicinePhysical therapyPain managementMedical physicsEngineering managementKnowledge managementEngineeringComputer sciencePathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Ensuring teaching faculty are well-informed of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines may help to ensure chiropractic students are educated accordingly throughout their training. This is imperative for maintaining high-quality education and developing competent chiropractic graduates. Objective: To develop a pedagogically-sound, technology-based learning tool aimed at improving knowledge of an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for teaching and clinical faculty at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College. Methods: I developed an online, module-based learning tool using an integrated knowledge translation approach informed by a systematic review and pedagogical theory. I conducted a cross-sectional evaluation of the user-centred constructs in a sample of teaching and clinical faculty. Results: The constructs of the learning tool were evaluated favourably. Participant feedback informed the development of pedagogically-focused recommendations for future development of the learning tool. Conclusions: My research can inform the development of pedagogically-sound, educational tools aimed to improve knowledge of clinical practice guidelines for chiropractic educators.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods · Empirical

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuee-scholar@UOIT (University of Ontario Institute of Technology)Same topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207