MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200507709 · doi:10.4300/jgme-d-21-00944.1

Making Your Educational Data Visual

2021· article· en· W4200507709 on OpenAlexaff
Tavinder K. Ark, Jorge A. Rodriguez, Brent Thoma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graduate Medical Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVisualizationData visualizationData scienceProcess (computing)Information retrievalInformation visualizationData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graduate medical educators collect a vast amount of educational data about applicants, learners, faculty, programs, and systems. Using this data effectively can be difficult. Typically, we view our data in a table or Excel spreadsheet, draw a conclusion, and then take action. Yet optimizing the use of our data requires iterative, ongoing interaction with the stakeholders and data analysis skills. This iterative process helps us decide which features of the data are most relevant to represent visually and which visual presentation structure is best to communicate the data story.Data visualization involves translating information into a visual context such as a graph, chart, or map, to render the data easier to understand and to gain insights. Effective data visualization can quickly communicate large amounts of information and complex relationships, engage viewers, and facilitate opportunities to share insights and conclusions.1–3 In medical education, uses of data visualization range from assessment of resident competence in dashboards to communicating statistical findings from a research study.Often, data visualization is viewed as the last step in data analysis, used to present key findings rather than integrated as part of the data analysis process. Actively using data visualizations throughout the analysis process can prompt recognition of relationships between data points, additional questions, and new analyses. Data can be explored in many ways, such as descriptively (eg, plotting all points, mean, or median) and in more complex ways (eg, exploring the relationships between variables and reanalyzing data by subgroup), with the goal of identifying insights that meet the needs and objectives of the audience. Graphs, such as bar charts for categorical data and boxplots for continuous data, can inform preliminary visualizations.1,4,5 Once finalized, visual mockups are tested with the target audience(s) to ensure that the data addresses their needs and complements the compelling narrative within the written report. Interactive data representation, such as longitudinal competency dashboards, can meaningfully inform stakeholder objectives over time as well as the data analyst's understanding of the data.1,3

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Graduate Medical EducationSame topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207