Data sharing and big data in health professions education: Ottawa consensus statement and recommendations for scholarship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in digital technology, increasing volume of data collection, and advances in methods have the potential to unleash the value of big data generated through the education of health professionals. Coupled with this potential are legitimate concerns about how data can be used or misused in ways that limit autonomy, equity, or harm stakeholders. This consensus statement is intended to address these issues by foregrounding the ethical imperatives for engaging with big data as well as the potential risks and challenges. Recognizing the wide and ever evolving scope of big data scholarship, we focus on foundational issues for framing and engaging in research. We ground our recommendations in the context of big data created through data sharing across and within the stages of the continuum of the education and training of health professionals. Ultimately, the goal of this statement is to support a culture of trust and quality for big data research to deliver on its promises for health professions education (HPE) and the health of society. Based on expert consensus and review of the literature, we report 19 recommendations in (1) framing scholarship and research through research, (2) considering unique ethical practices, (3) governance of data sharing collaborations that engage stakeholders, (4) data sharing processes best practices, (5) the importance of knowledge translation, and (6) advancing the quality of scholarship through multidisciplinary collaboration. The recommendations were modified and refined based on feedback from the 2022 Ottawa Conference attendees and subsequent public engagement. Adoption of these recommendations can help HPE scholars share data ethically and engage in high impact big data scholarship, which in turn can help the field meet the ultimate goal: high-quality education that leads to high-quality healthcare.
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 | 0.377 | 0.403 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.040 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.026 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.047 | 0.065 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".