MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012975130 · doi:10.1097/sih.0000000000000424

Formal Training Efforts to Develop Simulation Educators

2020· review· en· W3012975130 on OpenAlexaff
Jane B. Paige, Leslie Graham, Barbara J. Sittner

Bibliographic record

VenueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsDurham College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationInclusion (mineral)Process (computing)Training (meteorology)Best practiceStatement (logic)Computer sciencePsychologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STATEMENT: Formal training for educators who use simulation-based education (SBE) is required by standards of best practice, simulation guidelines, regulatory, and accrediting bodies. Training efforts to establish educator competency for SBE are being offered. However, a systematic review of this body of literature has yet to be conducted. The purpose of this integrative review was to appraise formal training efforts of educators who use SBE. The aims were to summarize the training topics, describe the structure of training programs, and explore evaluation methods of educators. The New World Kirkpatrick Model guided the review. A PRISMA search approach yielded 2007 citations of which 38 met inclusion criteria. Analysis supports a formalized training process that uses a combination of didactic material, time for repetitive practice, and ongoing feedback with longitudinal and scaffolded delivery approaches. An identified gap in the literature is threshold levels for determining competency of educators. Recommendations for planning simulation training programs are provided.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations34
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in HealthcareSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207