The legality and appropriateness of keeping Korean Medical Licensing Examination items confidential: a comparative analysis and review of court rulings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the legality and appropriateness of keeping the multiple-choice question items of the Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE) confidential. Through an analysis of cases from the United States, Canada, and Australia, where medical licensing exams are conducted using item banks and computer-based testing, we found that exam items are kept confidential to ensure fairness and prevent cheating. In Korea, the Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute (KHPLEI) has been disclosing KMLE questions despite concerns over exam integrity. Korean courts have consistently ruled that multiple-choice question items prepared by public institutions are non-public information under Article 9(1)(v) of the Korea Official Information Disclosure Act (KOIDA), which exempts disclosure if it significantly hinders the fairness of exams or research and development. The Constitutional Court of Korea has upheld this provision. Given the time and cost involved in developing high-quality items and the need to accurately assess examinees’ abilities, there are compelling reasons to keep KMLE items confidential. As a public institution responsible for selecting qualified medical practitioners, KHPLEI should establish its disclosure policy based on a balanced assessment of public interest, without influence from specific groups. We conclude that KMLE questions qualify as non-public information under KOIDA, and KHPLEI may choose to maintain their confidentiality to ensure exam fairness and efficiency.
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 | 0.063 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".