The benefits of accrediting institutions and organisations as providers of continuing professional education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professionals learn and change throughout their careers. This continuing professional development is supported, in part, by educational activities developed by individuals, organisations or institutions.In Europe and North America, processes have been established to set standards for the design and delivery of continuing healthcare professionals’ education (CE) that involve either approval of organisations as institutional providers of CE (i.e. accreditation) or approval of individual CE activities.In systems based on provider accreditation, the accredited organisations develop into communities of practice that show evidence of learning and changing such as to allow the CE system to evolve. In addition the provider accreditation model provides an amplification effect not found in activity accreditation systems, whereby one accreditation decision can result in multiple activities being generated. Additional efficiencies can be identified and may be useful to those determining if a provider accreditation system is an appropriate fit for their system, for their context and for the culture of professional education in which they operate.
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 | 0.066 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".