Investigative competencies in medicine students: research skills in medical students, questioning abilities in medicine students
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of competences in scientific and documentary research in the medical professional practice is of great importance since these will allow you to obtain the necessary data for the realization of consultations, as well as to check and / or develop new scientific theories, treatment of diseases, prevention satisfying the needs of society. A survey will be applied to 100 students of the Medicine career and interviews with 10 professors of the different levels in the Medicine Career (Basic, Intermediate and Advanced), where it is addressed from the perspectives of both on the current situation of scientific – documentary research in the students of the Medicine career of the Franz Tamayo Private University, of how is the evaluation to know the scope achieved in the research competences, if they have the necessary tools to develop scientific and documentary research following the APA (American Psychological Association) or Vancouver regulations, what they consider should be done to improve the situation in research during the teaching-learning process and if all teachers should use the same technological and motivational strategies.
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 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 | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it