Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Medical Council of Canada (MCC) has created an Assessment Review Task Force to formally consider all recommendations in Canada's ambitious “Future of Medical Education in Canada” project, assess aspects of the project related to its examinations, and report back within the next two years on how the Council can best support the changes suggested.The Future of Medical Education project was launched by the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada to change Canada's approach to medical education in a way that better meets current and future health care needs.Canada, like many western nations, is experiencing significant demographic and workforce shifts, from an increasingly large number of Canadian students studying medicine abroad, to changing public expectations of the role physicians should play as health care providers, to a new movement in the regulatory community towards common standards for licensure.As a part of its work, the Task Force will examine these changes and their impact on the assessment of physicians in Canada. It will identify any additional competencies that may require assessment in the future to ensure that physicians meet appropriate standards of care for licensure in Canada.According to MCC, the Task Force will work closely with Canada's regulatory community to better understand how it uses MCC's examinations currently. It will perform literature reviews and interviews with key experts to find out more about other potential physician assessments that might be added to its current assessment structure, and how these assessments might be of value throughout a physician's education, training and practice.Source: Medical Council of Canada website, June 2010Ireland's Minister for Health & Children has formally launched Part 11 of the 2007 Medical Practitioners Act, requiring physicians to participate in a new program of maintenance of professional competence.Ireland's Medical Council, which regulates physicians and medical practice, called the new program a milestone for the medical profession that will help promote the safety of patients.Part 11 of the Medical Practitioners Act, which is the final part of the act to be implemented, stipulates that all registered medical practitioners in Ireland must participate in maintenance of professional competence, including a process of engagement in continuing professional development (CPD) and clinical audit. All physicians must be engaged with the new process by 2011.The Medical Council assured physicians that its new process would not be overly burdensome, with Medical Council President Kieran Murphy saying: “For the majority of doctors this is the formalization in law of a process with which they are already voluntarily engaged.”Murphy said that the cost of the new process would not be significant for physicians or for organizations that provide medical education.“The majority of doctors are already involved in professional development, so I cannot see the introduction of this scheme creating a financial burden for them,” he said.“It is a very positive development for the profession and for patients who can now be certain that their doctor is maintaining their level of knowledge and skills. This will help to ensure that patients are getting the best possible care,” Murphy said.More information about Ireland's new maintenance of professional competence process is available at the Medical Council website at www.medicalcouncil.ie.Source: Medical Council of Ireland news release, May 31, 2010
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.323 | 0.123 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".