MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165324367 · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2021.1925100

Becoming a deliberately developmental organization: Using competency based assessment data for organizational development

2021· review· en· W3165324367 on OpenAlexaff
Brent Thoma, Holly Caretta‐Weyer, Daniel J. Schumacher, Eric J. Warm, Andrew K. Hall, Stanley J. Hamstra, Rodrigo B. Cavalcanti, Teresa M. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Teacher · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive reframingHealth careLeverage (statistics)Learning organizationLeadership developmentPsychologyProfessional developmentBusinessMedical educationKnowledge managementPublic relationsMedicinePolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical education is situated within health care and educational organizations that frequently lag in their use of data to learn, develop, and improve performance. How might we leverage competency-based medical education (CBME) assessment data at the individual, program, and system levels, with the goal of redefining CBME from an initiative that supports the development of physicians to one that also fosters the development of the faculty, administrators, and programs within our organizations? In this paper we review the Deliberately Developmental Organization (DDO) framework proposed by Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey, a theoretical framework that explains how organizations can foster the development of their people. We then describe the DDO's conceptual alignment with CBME and outline how CBME assessment data could be used to spur the transformation of health care and educational organizations into digitally integrated DDOs. A DDO-oriented use of CBME assessment data will require intentional investment into both the digitalization of assessment data and the development of the people within our organizations. By reframing CBME in this light, we hope that educational and health care leaders will see their investments in CBME as an opportunity to spur the evolution of a developmental culture.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations44
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical TeacherSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207