MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225262802 · doi:10.36834/cmej.73361

Four ways to get a grip on making robust decisions from workplace-based assessments

2022· article· en· W4225262802 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tim Wilkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Education Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synthesising the results of workplace-based assessments to inform robust decisions is seen as both important and difficult. Concerns about failing to fail the trainee not ready to proceed has drawn disproportionate attention to assessors. This paper proposes a model for a more systems-based view so that the value of the assessor's judgement is incorporated while preserving the value and robustness of collective decision-making. Our experience has shown it can facilitate robust decisions on some of the more difficult areas, such as professionalism.

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)0.229
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.272
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2290.272
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0130.008
Science and technology studies0.0070.056
Scholarly communication0.0410.052
Open science0.0090.027
Research integrity0.0150.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Education JournalSame topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207