MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225399930 · doi:10.36834/cmej.73897

Exploring the role of open book high-stakes examinations in 2021 and beyond

2022· article· en· W4225399930 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Beth‐Ann Cummings

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Education Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationHumanitiesPolitical scienceMedical practiceMedical educationLibrary scienceMedicinePhilosophyComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Performance on medical licensing examinations has been previously shown to be predictive of performance in practice. However, licensing examinations are closed-book and real-world medical practice increasingly requires doctors and patients to consult resources to make evidence-informed decisions. To best assess the ability of physicians and physicians-in-practice to avail themselves of point-of-care clinical resources and tools, open-book components may have an emerging role in high-stakes examinations.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Education JournalSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207