MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193168549 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000004308

Supported Independence: The Role of Supervision to Help Trainees Manage Uncertainty

2021· article· en· W3193168549 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan S. Ilgen, Anique B. H. de Bruin, Pim W. Teunissen, Jonathan Sherbino, Glenn Regehr

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)PsychologyMEDLINEMedical educationMedicinePolitical scienceStatisticsLawMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Safe and effective supervised practice requires a negotiated partnership between trainees and their supervisors. Substantial work has explored how supervisors make judgments about trainees' readiness to safely engage in critical professional activities, yet less is known about how trainees leverage the support of supervisors when they perceive themselves to be at the limits of their abilities. The purpose of this study is to explore how trainees use supervisory support to navigate experiences of clinical uncertainty. METHOD: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the authors explored how novice emergency medicine trainees conceptualized the role of their supervisors during experiences of clinical uncertainty. They employed a critical incident technique to elicit stories from participants immediately following clinical shifts between July and September 2020, and asked participants to describe their experiences of uncertainty within the context of supervised practice. Using constant comparison, 2 investigators coded line-by-line and organized these stories into focused codes. The relationships between these codes were discussed by the research team, and this enabled them to theorize about the relationships between the emergent themes. RESULTS: Participants reported a strong desire for supported independence, where predictable and accessible supervisory structures enabled them to work semiautonomously through challenging clinical situations. They described a process of borrowing their supervisors' comfort during moments of uncertainty and mechanisms to strategically broadcast their evolving understanding of a situation to implicitly invoke (the right level of) support from their supervisors. They also highlighted challenges they faced when they felt insufficiently supported. CONCLUSIONS: By borrowing comfort from-or deliberately projecting their thinking to-supervisors, trainees aimed to strike the appropriate balance between independence for the purposes of learning and support to ensure safety. Understanding these strategic efforts could help educators to better support trainees in their growth toward self-regulation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.322 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations40
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207