MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251265234 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.224

Increasing the Utility of AAMC Canadian Graduation Questionnaire Data for Program Evaluation: Subscale Development

2015· article· en· W4251265234 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shayna A. Rusticus, Linda N. Peterson, Chris Y. Lovato

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)Medical educationReliability (semiconductor)PsychologyApplied psychologyFamily medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The AAMC Canadian Graduation Questionnaire (CGQ) is widely used for evaluating undergraduate MD programs; however, the analysis of individual items limits its usefulness. To aid in the management and interpretation of the CGQ for use in program evaluation, this study combined items from the sections on clinical learning experiences, physician competencies, and student services into scales and examined their internal structure and reliability. Factor analyses conducted on data from 517 undergraduate medical students supported combining the items into 15 scales. Two examples illustrate how the scales can be used to evaluate student experiences for different cohorts over time and across sites.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.530
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.028 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207