MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387246673 · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2023.2259062

Developing a programmatic approach to faculty development and scholarship using the ASPIRE criteria: AMEE Guide No. 165

2023· article· en· W4387246673 on OpenAlexaff
Stijntje Dijk, Ardi Findyartini, Peter Cantillon, François Cilliers, Ugo Caramori, Patricia O’Sullivan, Karen Leslie

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Teacher · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipErasmus+ExcellenceMedical educationFaculty developmentQuality (philosophy)Professional developmentMedicineEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faculty Development (FD) has become essential in shaping design, delivery and quality assurance of health professions education. The growth of FD worldwide has led to a heightened expectation for quality and organizational integrity in the delivery of FD programmes. To address this, AMEE, An International Association for Health Professions Education, developed quality standards for FD through the development of the AMEE ASPIRE to Excellence criteria. This guide uses the ASPIRE criteria as a framework for health professions educators who wish to establish or expand approaches to FD delivery and scholarship within their institutions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical TeacherSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207