Scope and Impact of Visualization in Training Professionals in Academic Medicine
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professional training often requires need-based scheduling and observation-based assessment. In this paper, we present a visualization platform for managing such training data in a medical education domain, where the learners are resident physicians and the educators are certified doctors. The system was developed through four focus groups with the residents and their educators over six major development iterations. We present how the professionals involved, nature of training, choice of the display devices, and the overall assessment process influenced the design of the visualizations. The final system was deployed as a web tool for the department of emergency medicine, and evaluated by both the residents and their educators in an uncontrolled longitudinal study. Our analysis of four months of user logs revealed interesting usage patterns consistent with real-life training events and showed an improvement in several key learning metrics when compared to historical values during the same study period. The users' feedback showed that both educators and residents found our system to be helpful in real-life decision making.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 it