MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125703564 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v13n3p59

Training Improvement through Subjective Work Analysis: The Example of Radial Puncture

2021· article· en· W3125703564 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Philippe Fauquet-Alekhine, G Bouhours, Justin Texier, Amaury Loret, Saadi Lahlou, Jean-Claude Granry

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicStress and Burnout Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLondon School of Economics and Political Science
KeywordsSession (web analytics)CurriculumMedical educationPerspective (graphical)PsychologyComputer scienceMedicinePedagogyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim was to test a method developed in nuclear industry applied to a simple activity, the radial artery puncture, and to assess its capacity to improve performance. The method involved digital ethnography based on the Square of PErceived ACtion model applied in real operating situation and first-person perspective video for post-analysis of the activity in order to improve training design. Two types of training sessions were compared in terms of trainees’ performance, one of them taking benefits of the digital ethnography analysis (restructured session) and the other without (classic session): medical students trained in the anesthesiology department of the university (N=24) were summoned for training in the framework of their university curriculum. Data obtained were used to restructure the training session and to elaborate an evaluation grid to assess performance in both sessions. Trainees’ motivation was assessed through the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. The restructured session showed significantly higher overall performance (increased by 13%), improvement of every criterion assessed and no alteration of motivation. The improvement obtained for radial puncture matches this observed in nuclear industry. The improvement is two folds: at the level of the training efficiency and at the level of trainees’ performance.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicStress and Burnout ResearchFrench-language works237,207