MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220725743 · doi:10.36834/cmej.73844

Is there a role for a learner education handover as part of the Medical Council of Canada assessment and licensing process?

2022· article· en· W4220725743 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Leslie Nickell, Aliya Kassam, Glen Bandiera

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Education Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationSummative assessmentAccommodationProcess (computing)MedicineHandoverPsychologyComputer sciencePedagogyFormative assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transition from undergraduate medical education (UGME) to postgraduate medical education (PGME) is a time of vulnerability for medical schools, postgraduate residency programs, and most importantly, traineesThere is a disconnect between the UGME and PGME experience. Student information shared by UGME is primarily summative of knowledge and skills; PGME programs are unaware of specific learner accommodation requirements, tailored supervisory needs, or potential professionalism concerns identified during UGMEThis lack of integration between UGME and PGME increases potential risk to learners, postgrad programs and patientsBetter linkages and communication along the education continuum could optimize learning and reduce inefficiency and riskThe Medical Council of Canada (MCC) has asked if there is a role for a learner handover (LH) within their licensing processes; however the intended purpose of an LH must first be determinedA Canadian-based LH referred to as a Learner Education Handover (LEH) model including disclosure of student learning/disability accommodation needs, general health concerns, EDI/religious requirements, professionalism concerns, and recommendations for special focus in residency of specific areas of medical knowledge/skill is described.Findings from beta and pilot testing support the value and feasibility of the LEH model. Fundamental principles are outlined: LEH occurs post-residency matchLEH should be forward facing; focused on ongoing or recurring learner issues and needsLearners must be included in the processImplementation would require participation by all Canadian medical schools and all learnersImplementation challenges include: Ensuring learner safety following information disclosureEngaging UGME DeansProtection of information ensuring a 'need-to-know' status is maintainedIncorporating the LEH into the licensing activity could enable the MCC to support a system that proactively responds to learner needs, optimizes physician performance and promotes safe, high quality patient care.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.310 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Education Journal→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→