MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225306899 · doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2022.02.014

Validity Evidence for Procedure-Specific Competency Assessment Tools in Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery: A Scoping Review

2022· review· en· W4225306899 on OpenAlexaff
Abigail White, Hellmuth R. Muller Moran, Joanna F. Ryan, Brett Mador, Sandy Campbell, Simon R. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of surgical education · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaAlberta LibraryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRigourMedicineCardiothoracic surgeryAccreditationGraduate medical educationVascular surgeryMedical physicsCardiac surgeryPhysical therapySurgeryMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.236
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.236
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.012
Bibliometrics0.0130.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.397
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.110 · 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 designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of surgical educationSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207