MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402447285 · doi:10.5539/jel.v13n6p115

The Predictive Value of Admission Qualifications on the Academic Performance of First-Year Medical Students in Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) College of Medicine

2024· article· en· W4402447285 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rose Anna R. Banal, Maria Cielo B. Malijan, Fernando P. Solidum, Merry M. Clamor, P Rio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Education and Admissions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictive valueValue (mathematics)PsychologyMedical schoolMedical educationEntrance examMathematics educationPredictive validityMedicineInternal medicineStatisticsClinical psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Well-designed admission criteria can predict the likelihood of students succeeding in the medical program. This study aims to evaluate the predictive capability of the admission qualifications used in the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) College of Medicine concerning the academic performance of first-year medical students. Data from 1,203 students were analyzed, revealing that premedical general weighted average (GWA) and National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) scores significantly correlate with academic performance in the first year, whereas Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores do not. The interview, when combined with GWA and NMAT scores, can also predict the students’ final GWA at the end of their first year. Premedical school and courses are also potential predictors of academic success. This study holds significant implications in refining the admission criteria in this university that would ensure academic success of the students.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicMedical Education and AdmissionsFrench-language works237,207