MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224291460 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/n5fqe

Using Lbl2Vec and BERTopic for Semi-Supervised Detec-tion of Professionalism Aspects in a Constructed-Response Situational Judgment Test

2022· preprint· en· W4224291460 on OpenAlexaffabout
Okan Bulut, Alexander MacIntosh, Cole Walsh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Education and Admissions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituation awarenessSituational ethicsEmpathySet (abstract data type)PsychologyTest (biology)Context (archaeology)Meaning (existential)CognitionApplied psychologyInterpretation (philosophy)Medical educationSocial psychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most medical schools in the United States and Canada evaluate applicants based on both academic achievements and non-cognitive (soft) skills such as professionalism. Commonly, medical school applicants are required to complete Casper—an online constructed-response situational judgment test developed and administered by Altus Assessments to assess various aspects of professionalism such as ethics, empathy, resilience, and collaboration. Examinees writing Casper are given a set of real-life, hypothetical scenarios and asked to explain how they would handle the situation and their reasoning behind it. Since each Casper scenario focuses on multiple aspects of professionalism, examinees do not have to target any specific aspect in their responses. To ensure the correct use and interpretation of Casper scores, the Altus team needs to reliably evaluate whether examinees’ responses for each scenario address the anticipated aspects of professionalism identified by subject mat-ter experts. In this study, we demonstrate how natural language processing (NLP) methods can be employed to characterize the meaning and context of written responses in relation to different aspects of professionalism. Using the Lbl2Vec and BERTopic algorithms, we performed a semi-supervised analysis of written responses from a large sample of medical school applicants (n = 635,106) by clustering the responses into latent topics based on a set of predefined keywords and labels for each professionalism aspect. Our analysis yielded substantive topics that were mostly aligned with the anticipated professionalism aspects. Furthermore, in terms of topical prevalence, some aspects of professionalism (e.g., self-awareness) appeared to be more dominant than the other aspects in the responses. Overall, our proposed approach delivers a feasible mechanism to identify overlapping topics and aspects to maintain test quality and improve human rater training and monitor-ing in constructed-response situational judgment tests.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Education and AdmissionsFrench-language works237,207