MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091910042 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000003789

Learning Echocardiography in the Workplace: A Cognitive Load Perspective

2020· article· en· W3091910042 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

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive loadPerspective (graphical)Task (project management)Thematic analysisCognitionPerceptionReading (process)PsychologySample (material)Medical educationComputer scienceMedicineCognitive psychologyQualitative researchArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Although workplace learning environments provide authentic tasks to promote learning, elements of clinical settings may distract trainees and impede learning. The characteristics of workplace learning environments that require optimization are ill-defined. Applying principles of cognitive load theory (CLT) to optimize learning environments by managing intrinsic load (complexity of the task matched to learner knowledge and skill), minimizing extraneous load (any aspect that is not part of task completion), and increasing germane load (processing for storage in long-term memory) could be advantageous. The authors explored trainee perceptions of characteristics that helped or impaired learning from a cognitive load perspective. Echocardiography interpretation was used as a model. METHOD: The authors conducted semistructured interviews between December 2018 and March 2019 with a purposeful sample of 10 cardiology trainees at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine until thematic sufficiency was achieved. Participants represented a range of training levels (3 fourth-year trainees, 2 fifth-year trainees, 3 sixth-year trainees, and 2 advanced echocardiography fellows) and career aspirations (4 desired careers in imaging). Two independent coders analyzed interview transcripts using template analysis. Codes were mapped to CLT subcomponents. RESULTS: Trainees selected their own echocardiograms to interpret; if trainees' skill levels and the complexity of the selected echocardiograms were mismatched, excess intrinsic load could result. Needing to look up information essential for task completion, interruptions, reporting software, and time pressures were characteristics that contributed to extraneous load. Characteristics that related to increasing germane load included the shared physical space (facilitating reading echocardiograms with attendings and just-in-time guidance from near peers) and the availability of final reports to obtain feedback independent of teachers. CONCLUSIONS: As interpreted from a cognitive load perspective, findings highlight characteristics of workplace learning environments that could be optimized to improve learning. The findings have direct application to redesigning these learning environments.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.335 · 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