A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of the Geriatrics Update: Clinical Pearls Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine Annual Geriatrics Update: Clinical Pearls Course (Geriatrics Update) is a one-day, continuing medical education (CME) course designed to enhance geriatrics competency for family physicians (FPs), given increasing population age and complexity. We aimed to evaluate how the course meets FPs' perceived learning needs and identify modifications that may better support FPs. METHODS: Descriptive data from 2018-2019 course evaluation surveys including demographic data, evaluations, and narrative feedback from participating FPs. Semi-structured phone and video-conferenced interviews with FPs were thematically analyzed each year. RESULTS: =.001) more confident on course objectives after the course in both years. All interviewees (n=20) described fulfilled perceived and unperceived learning needs and planned to return. The Geriatrics Update course is the primary source of Geriatrics CME for 60% of interviewees. CONCLUSIONS: Iterative evaluation of Geriatrics Update identified that the course is well received, and often FPs primary source of geriatric CME. Interviews provided additional context and descriptive feedback to improve course delivery and better meet FP learning needs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".