MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323352824 · doi:10.36834/cmej.76489

Teaching peer reviewing to medical students through authentic peer reviews: how to build the next generation of scholars

2023· article· en· W4323352824 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cindy Schmidt, Grace Thiel, Celeste Murtha

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Education Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeer reviewMedical educationPeer feedbackTechnical peer reviewProcess (computing)Field (mathematics)Graduate studentsComputer sciencePsychologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implication Statement: ). The positive feedback and competency gained is described in the students' Letter to the Editor. While this course was initially created to benefit students, it has also helped to address a known deficit in peer reviewers. Énoncé des implications de la recherche: (CMEJ). Les commentaires positifs et les compétences acquises sont décrits dans une lettre des étudiants à l'éditeur. Bien qu'à l'origine ce cours ait été créé pour profiter aux étudiants, il a également contribué à combler un déficit notoire de pairs évaluateurs.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.758
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.758
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.270
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Education JournalSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207