MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388776129 · doi:10.30770/2572-1852-109.3.28

International Briefs

2023· article· en· W4388776129 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Regulation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AustraliaData Strategy PublishedThe Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) has published its Data Strategy 2023–2028 after an extensive public consultation that took place between 2022–2023.Ahpra consulted the public, practitioners, and various stakeholders, including employers and health system partners, on the strategy which sets the strategic directions for the collection, use, and disclosure of the data they hold and for future strategic data projects in the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (the National Scheme).The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, as in force in each state and territory (the National Law), requires Ahpra to collect, use, and share data as part of their work to protect the public and facilitate access to a sustainable health workforce.The full report is available at https://www.ahpra.gov.au/About-Ahpra/Data-Strategy.aspxSource: Ahpra News Release, July 18, 2023CanadaMCC Blueprint Project 2023The Medical Council of Canada (MCC) has recently undertaken a review and revision process for the blueprints of its two large-scale examinations: the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination (MCCQE) Part I and the National Assessment Collaboration (NAC) Examination.The goals of the Blueprint Project are to:In the coming months, the Blueprint Project team will gather data from a diverse range of sources including national surveys, literature and document reviews, focus groups, and key informant interviews. This comprehensive data collection process will go beyond traditional medical expertise and examine the importance of emerging societal and technological competencies in medical practice. The insights gathered will be presented in late 2023 to a subject matter expert panel charged with making recommendations to the MCC on the nature of its revised blueprints.This comprehensive review and revision process demonstrates the MCC's commitment to maintaining the quality and relevance of its examinations, benefiting aspiring physicians, educational institutions, and the healthcare system as a whole.Source: Medical Council of Canada News Release, June 23, 2023United KingdomWorkplace Discrimination and the Effects on TraineesMicro-aggressions, negative comments, and stereotyping are just some of the workplace issues affecting trainee doctors, according to a report recently released by the General Medical Council (GMC).The regulator's annual national training survey was completed by more than 70000 doctors across the UK who are either in training or act as trainers. It included questions on discrimination for the first time this year, uncovering worrying insights into the experiences of trainees.The new questions posed to trainees covered topics such as unfair treatment, stereotyping, and confidence in reporting discriminatory or unprofessional behaviors. Answers relate to their experiences with colleagues or fellow healthcare professionals, rather than with patients or relatives.Though most doctors in training say they work in supportive environments, more than a quarter (27%) said they have experienced micro-aggressions, negative comments, or oppressive body language from colleagues. Poor behaviors are more prevalent in some specialties, with instances rising to a third for those working in obstetrics and gynecology, emergency medicine, and surgery.More than 1 in 10 trainee doctors reported they had felt ‘intentionally humiliated’ in front of others. The questions highlighted a particularly negative experience for those in their two-year long Foundation Program – doctors who have completed medical school and entered their first paid clinical work while training. One in 5 (22%) of foundation trainees said they'd been blamed for something they didn't do in their current post, compared to 1 out of 10 (10%) on specialty or core programs.More than a quarter (28%) of trainees said they had heard insults, stereotyping, or jokes relating to their or another person's protected characteristics in their post. This number rose to 38% for foundation trainees.The results highlighted that many feel uncomfortable speaking up. Only 6 out of 10 (60%) said they would feel confident about reporting discrimination without fear of adverse consequences.The full report is available at https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/national-training-survey-2023-initial-findings-report_pdf-101939815.pdfSource: GMC News Release, July 11, 2023

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.369 · 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