CONFERD-HP: Recommendations for Reporting COmpeteNcy FramEwoRk Development in Healthcare Professions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competency frameworks outline the perceived knowledge, skills and other attributes required for professional practice. Competency frameworks have gained in popularity, in part for their ability to inform health professions education, assessment, professional mobility, and other activities. Previous research has shown inadequate reporting within reports describing their development and that may jeopardize their use and application. We aimed to develop a set of minimum criteria that provides guidance to authors (and consumers) in an effort to improve reporting of the development of competency frameworks. The checklist was developed by a 35-member expert panel and a five-member research team following published guidance from the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items including guidance on reporting title and abstract, framework development, the development process, testing and funding/conflicts of interest. The intent of the COmpeteNcy FramEwoRk Development in Health Professions (CONFERD-HP) reporting guideline is to help readers (including researchers, educators, regulators, health professionals, and patients) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for competency framework development in health professions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.597 | 0.806 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.019 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".