Inter-institutional data-driven education research: consensus values, principles, and recommendations to guide the ethical sharing of administrative education data in the Canadian medical education research context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Administrative data are generated when educating, licensing, and regulating future physicians but these data are rarely used beyond their pre-specified purposes. The capacity necessary for sensitive and responsive oversight that supports the sharing of administrative medical education data across institutions for research purposes needs to be developed. Method: A pan-Canadian consensus-building project was undertaken to develop agreement on the goals, benefits, risks, values, and principles that should underpin inter-institutional data-driven medical education research in Canada. A survey of key literature, consultations with various stakeholders and five successive knowledge synthesis workshops informed this project. Propositions were developed, driving subsequent discussions until collective agreement was distilled. Results: ; informed consent from data generators in education systems is non-negotiable; multi-institutional data sharing requires special governance; data governance should be guided by data sovereignty; data use should be guided by an identified set of shared values; and best practices in research data-management should be applied. Conclusion: We recommend establishing a representative governance body, engaging trusted data facility, and adherence to extant data management policies when sharing administrative medical education data for research purposes in Canada.
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 | 0.558 | 0.452 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.042 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".