MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982117190 · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2019.104222

Simulated patient scenario development: A methodological review of validity and reliability reporting

2019· review· en· W2982117190 on OpenAlexafffund
Noeman Mirza, Julie Cinel, Heather Noyes, Wendy A. McKenzie, Kim B. Burgess, Sheila Blackstock, Darlene Sanderson

Bibliographic record

VenueNurse Education Today · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
FundersThompson Rivers University
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)CINAHLFidelityConstruct validityComputer scienceFace validityContent validityPsycINFOInclusion (mineral)PsychologyApplied psychologyMEDLINEPsychometricsSocial psychologyPsychological interventionClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Reporting · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Reporting · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designmedium
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)0.276
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.602
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2760.602
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.019
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.358
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.168 · 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.

Metaresearch

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

Study designSystematic review · Other design
DomainReporting
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNurse Education TodaySame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207