Re-examining the value proposition for Competency-Based Medical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adoption of competency-based medical education (CBME) by Canadian postgraduate training programs has created a storm of excitement and controversy. Implementing the system-wide Competency by Design (CBD) project initiated by the Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC), is an ambitious transformative change challenge. Not surprisingly, tensions have arisen across the country around the theoretical underpinnings of CBME and the practicalities of implementation, resulting in calls for evidence justifying its value. Assumptions have been made on both sides of the argument contributing to an atmosphere of unhealthy protection of the status quo, premature conclusions of CBME's worth, and an oversimplification of risks and costs to participants. We feel that a renewed effort to find a shared vision of medical education and the true value proposition of CBME is required to recreate a growth-oriented mindset. Also, the aspirational assertion of a direct link between CBME and improved patient outcomes requires deferral until further implementation and study has occurred. However, we perceive more concrete and immediate value of CBME arises from the societal contract physicians have, the connection to maintaining self-regulation, and the potential customization of training for learners.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".