MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403822098 · doi:10.1352/1944-7558-129.6.476

Providing Care to People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in Medical Education

2024· article· en· W4403822098 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObjective structured clinical examinationMedical educationPsychologyQualitative propertyIntellectual disabilityScale (ratio)Qualitative researchClinical PracticeMedicineNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical professionals commonly report having inadequate training providing care for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). This pilot study aimed to address this gap through a virtual Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) with individuals with IDD as patient educators for 25 first- and second-year medical students (OSCE participants). Quantitative data through the Prediger competency scale and qualitative data through a semistructured interview were analyzed. OSCE participants reported a significant increase (p < 0.05) in self-perceived competency scores when comparing pre- and post-OSCE scores. Qualitative analysis yielded themes corresponding to improving skills, practice considerations, and perspectives and biases changes. These results suggested that this virtual OSCE promoted the development of self-perceived clinical competency and comfort providing care for individuals with IDD.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.284 · 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