Characterizing preferred terms for geographically distant simulations: distance, remote and telesimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Simulationists lack standard terms to describe new practices accommodating pandemic restrictions. A standard language around these new simulation practices allows ease of communication among simulationists in various settings. Methods We explored consensus terminology for simulation accommodating geographic separation of participants, facilitators or equipment. We used an iterative process with participants of two simulation conferences, with small groups and survey ranking. Results Small groups (n = 121) and survey ranking (n = 54) were used with distance, remote, and telesimulation as leading terms. Each was favored by a third of the participants without consensus. Conclusion This research has deepened our understanding of how simulationists interpret this terminology, including the derived themes: (1) physical distance/separation, (2) overarching nature of the term and (3) implications from existing terms. We further deepen the conceptual discussion on healthcare simulation aligned with the search of the terminologies. We propose there are nuances that prevent an early consensus recommendation. A taxonomy of descriptors specifying the conduct of distance, remote and telesimulation is preferred.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".