MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255629644 · doi:10.21203/rs.2.21655/v2

The erosion of ambiguity tolerance and sustainment of perfectionism in undergraduate Medical training: A study of clerkship training effects.

2020· preprint· en· W4255629644 on OpenAlexaff
Silvio Ndoja, Saad Chahine, Donald H. Saklofske, Brent A. Lanting

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbiguity toleranceTraining (meteorology)AmbiguityMedical educationPsychologyPerfectionism (psychology)MedicineComputer scienceClinical psychologyGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Medicine is a field that is simultaneously factual and ambiguous. While studies have examined medical trainees’ tolerance of ambiguity (TOA), the extent to which TOA is affected by clinical experiences and its association with perfectionism is unknown. Methods: This was a multiple sampling, single cohort study of students in their first year of clinical clerkship which is comprised of 6 core rotations. Consenting students completed an online anonymous survey assessing their tolerance of ambiguity (TOA) and perfectionism in their first (pre) and last (post) 12 weeks of their clinical clerkship year. Tolerance of Ambiguity in Medical Students and Doctors (TAMSAD) and The Big Three perfectionism scale-short form (BTPS-SF) were used to assess TOA and perfectionism respectively. Pre-Post mean comparisons of TOA and perfectionism were assessed via t-tests. Results: From a total possible sample of 174 clinical clerkship students, 51 students responded to pre-survey, 62 responded to post-survey. Clerkship was associated with a significant decrease in TOA (p=0.00) with mean pre-TOA scores of 59.57 and post TOA of 43.8. Perfectionism scores were not significantly different over time (p>0.05). There was a moderate inverse correlation between TOA and perfectionism before clerkship (r=0.32) that increased slightly after clerkship (r=0.39). Those preferring primary care specialties had significantly lower rigid and total perfectionism scores in pre-clerkship than those choosing other specialties, but this difference was not found post-clerkship. Conclusion: We hypothesize that the decrease in TOA seen in this study may reflect an underlying anxiety cycle related to frequent rotation changes. Implications of the role of perfectionism and primary care is discussed. Overall these results require further investigation to better characterize the role of clinical exposure on TOA.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesFrench-language works237,207