MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396904551 · doi:10.1186/s13643-024-02553-w

Protocol for a scoping review study on learning plan use in undergraduate medical education

2024· review· en· W4396904551 on OpenAlexafffund
Anna Romanova, Claire Touchie, Sydney Ruller, Victoria Cole, Susan Humphrey‐Murto

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
FundersDepartment of Medicine, Ottawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedical educationMedicinePlan (archaeology)Process (computing)Inclusion (mineral)Computer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The current paradigm of competency-based medical education and learner-centredness requires learners to take an active role in their training. However, deliberate and planned continual assessment and performance improvement is hindered by the fragmented nature of many medical training programs. Attempts to bridge this continuity gap between supervision and feedback through learner handover have been controversial. Learning plans are an alternate educational tool that helps trainees identify their learning needs and facilitate longitudinal assessment by providing supervisors with a roadmap of their goals. Informed by self-regulated learning theory, learning plans may be the answer to track trainees' progress along their learning trajectory. The purpose of this study is to summarise the literature regarding learning plan use specifically in undergraduate medical education and explore the student's role in all stages of learning plan development and implementation. METHODS: Following Arksey and O'Malley's framework, a scoping review will be conducted to explore the use of learning plans in undergraduate medical education. Literature searches will be conducted using multiple databases by a librarian with expertise in scoping reviews. Through an iterative process, inclusion and exclusion criteria will be developed and a data extraction form refined. Data will be analysed using quantitative and qualitative content analyses. DISCUSSION: By summarising the literature on learning plan use in undergraduate medical education, this study aims to better understand how to support self-regulated learning in undergraduate medical education. The results from this project will inform future scholarly work in competency-based medical education at the undergraduate level and have implications for improving feedback and supporting learners at all levels of competence. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework osf.io/wvzbx.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.162
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.157
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1620.157
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.010
Bibliometrics0.0190.013
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0110.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1460.032

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 head0.312
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207