MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027317088 · doi:10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000622

Can simulation foster resilience in medical students?

2020· article· en· W3027317088 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebriefingMindsetResilience (materials science)Psychological interventionMedical educationPsychologySet (abstract data type)Intervention (counseling)Variety (cybernetics)Applied psychologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resilience is considered to be ‘a mindset and skill set that can be nurtured into a stronger and more effective attribute’.1 Whether and how it can be nurtured in medical students is a subject of interest for medical educators.1 2 Little is known about how physicians develop resilience.3 While some interventions show promise,4 resilience training in medical education is not well studied. We aimed to develop a teaching intervention with high acceptability to undergraduate medical students, which would allow exposure to challenges in a controlled, psychologically safe environment, and might enhance their resilience. Simulation- based education provided opportunities for carefully designed scenarios and debriefing by trained facilitators. Structured debriefing enabled participants to recognise and discuss stressful situations, as well as increase their connection with each other and with their teachers. These factors have been found to enhance resilience in other contexts.5 Participants’ impressions were explored qualitatively, and suggest that simulation can encourage reflection on the non- technical skill of resilience, provided there is careful design and debriefing of the simulation activity.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.415 · 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