Cologne Consensus Conference Standards and Guidelines in Accredited CPD September 13-14, 2019, Cologne, Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On September 13–14, 2019 the eighth annual Cologne Consensus Conference was held in Cologne, Germany. The two-day educational event was organised by the International Academy of CPD Accreditors, a network of colleagues dedicated to promoting and enhancing continuing professional development (CPD) accreditation systems throughout the world. The conference was planned in cooperation with an impressive group of organisations representing leading European and North American institutions: the European Cardiology Section Foundation (ECSF), the Accreditation Council for CME (ACCME), the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, and Continuing Medical Education–European Accreditors (CME-EA). For the conference’s eighth iteration, Standards and Guidelines in Accredited CPD was chosen as the program topic and educational focus; a choice reflecting increasing international collaborations and an evolution towards consistency and standards across global accreditation systems. A specific list of domains and criteria (developed under a broader initiative already underway by the Academy) would serve as the core content around which the conference was planned. This conference report describes the initiative, the proposed standards to date, highlights of the Cologne Consensus Conference discussions and feedback, and the ongoing process of achieving consensus on the standards yet to be finalised.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".