MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3018793171 · doi:10.1051/pmed/2020015

Patient simulé et patient standardisé : peut-on en finir avec le terme SPs ?

2019· article· fr· W3018793171 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle Burnier, Diane Bouchard-Lamothe, Zaki Khouani

Bibliographic record

VenuePédagogie médicale · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contexte : Les patients simulés et standardisés participent à l’éducation des professionnels de la santé depuis plus de 50 ans. Pourtant, la terminologie utilisée dans ce domaine reste encore sujette à confusion. Exégèse : Une mise en contexte historique permet de comprendre la variabilité des termes au fil du temps. Un aperçu narratif de l’évolution des définitions met en évidence l’origine de la confusion. Conclusion : À l’inverse des écrits de l’Amérique du Nord, la littérature internationale apparaît en faveur d’une distinction entre patient simulé et patient standardisé.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.327 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePédagogie médicaleSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207