MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010851696

Simulation use in paediatric student respiratory therapy training.

2017· article· en· W3010851696 on OpenAlexaff
Catharine M. Walsh, Katherine S. Reise, Roger Correia

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Scope (computer science)MedicinePhysical therapyMedical educationPsychologyMedical physicsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At SickKids it is a perennial challenge for clinical leads and preceptors to ensure that student respiratory therapists (SRTs) acquire the entire scope of the paediatric skill set as set out by the 2016 National Competency Profile. As such, simulation has historically been used to supplement the clinical experience for SRTs at Sick Kids; however, the extent to which simulation-based education can replace clinical experience is not clearly established in the literature. At SickKids, we have created an alternative paediatric rotation where the percentage of time spent in the simulation environment is greater than in the traditional, clinical-based rotation. We hypothesize that there should be comparable levels of performance in a simulated setting between students in clinical and simulation-based rotations, as well as comparable measures of self-reported values for cognitive load, self-appraisal, and self-efficacy. Thus far, we have enrolled 59 students, with 54 completing postclinical rotation testing. Follow-up retention testing has been complicated by geographical factors. Following data analysis, we will publish our findings.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.275
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207