MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027948395 · doi:10.36834/cmej.69228

Five ways to get a grip on evaluating and improving educational continuity in health professions education programs

2020· article· en· W3027948395 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ann Lee, Shelley Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Education Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth professionsMedical educationComputer scienceMedicineHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Presence of educational continuity is essential for progressive development of competence. Educational continuity appears to be a simple concept, but in practice, it is challenging to implement and evaluate because of its multifaceted nature. In this Black Ice article, we present some practical tips to help avoid misunderstandings and irregularities in implementation for those involved in evaluating and improving educational continuity in health professions education programs.

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)0.275
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.327
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2750.327
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0140.009
Science and technology studies0.0150.016
Scholarly communication0.0270.035
Open science0.0090.023
Research integrity0.0180.036
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.396 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Education JournalSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207