MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997373298 · doi:10.26481/dis.20190620as

Through the eyes of the physician

2019· dissertation· en· W2997373298 on OpenAlexaff
Szulewski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionCognitive loadPsychologyPupilMedicineMedical educationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chapter 2The use of task-evoked pupillary response as an objective measure of cognitive load in novices and trained physicians: a new tool for the assessment of expertise Published as: Szulewski, A., Roth, N., & Howes, D. (2015).The use of task-evoked pupillary response as an objective measure of cognitive load in novices and trained physicians: a new tool for the assessment of expertise.Academic Medicine, 90(7), 981-987. 15Chapter 3 Measuring physician cognitive load: Validity evidence for a physiologic and a psychometric tool

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1330.048

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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 topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207