MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400132864 · doi:10.1080/28338073.2024.2370746

Effect of COVID-19 on Continuing Education Activities and Learner Interactions: Report from Six Accreditation Systems

2024· article· en· W4400132864 on OpenAlexaff
Kate Regnier, Amy L. Smith, Jean-Philippe Natali, Siritio Berthe, R. Griebenow, Robert Schaefer, Joerg Stein, Essam Elsayed, Michel Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of CME · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakResilience (materials science)Continuing educationSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Medical educationPublic relationsPsychologyBusinessMedicinePolitical scienceVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic has had disruptive effects on all parts of the health-care system, including the continuing education (CE) landscape. This report documents, what has happened in six different CE accreditation systems to CE activities as well as learners. Complete lockdown periods in the first part of the COVID-19 pandemic have inevitably led to reductions in numbers of the then predominant format of education, i.e. onsite in-person meetings. However, with impressive speed CE providers have switched to online educational formats. With regard to learner interactions this has compensated, and in some systems even overcompensated, the loss of in-person educational opportunities. Thus, our data convincingly demonstrate the resilience of CPD in times of a global health crisis and offer important insights in how CPD might become more effective in the future.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of CME→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→