MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993100816 · doi:10.1177/0840470419869032

The role of artificial intelligence in learning and professional development for healthcare professionals

2019· review· en· W2993100816 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical CentreIsland Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth professionalsHealth careProfessional developmentMedical educationPsychologyKnowledge managementEngineering ethicsMedicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the emerging role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the learning and professional development of healthcare professionals. It provides a brief history of AI, current and past applications in healthcare education and training, and discusses why and how health leaders can revolutionize education system practices using AI in healthcare education. It also discusses potential implications of AI on human educators like clinical educators and provides recommendations for health leaders to support the application of AI in the learning and professional development of healthcare professionals.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.383 · 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