STUDENT OPINION ABOUT SCRIPT CONCORDANCE TEST, JEDDAH, KSA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Medical students undergo rigorous medical training to acquire appropriate skills in areas of clinical reasoning and professional skills, among others. The Script Concordance Test(SCT) was developed in Canada to assess the clinical reasoning skills of students to ensure that they have the necessary knowledge and skills to execute functions effectively in clinical environments characterized by uncertainty. Methodology: The current study was conducted to assess the opinions of Saudi health students regarding the SCT. In the study, a cross-sectional study with online questionnaires used to survey and collect data from study participants. The quantitative method of data analysis used yielded essential outcomes. Result: The study found that female students had more knowledge about the test than male students. Likewise, KSA students were more knowledgeable than non-KSA students. Among the KSA students, participants from KAU had more knowledge about the test than students from other universities.MORE IS NEEDEDWITH FIGURESAND SIGNIFICANCE Conclusion: Overall, postgraduate students showed more knowledge about the test than undergraduate students. The test was generally accepted, but knowledge about it could be enhanced further among the students.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".