MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404543514 · doi:10.5334/pme.1270

Digital Evidence: Revisiting Assumptions at the Intersection of Technology and Assessment

2024· article· en· W4404543514 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew E. Krumm, Saad Chahine, Abigail Schuh, Daniel J. Schumacher, Sondra Zabar, Brian C. George, Kayla Marcotte, Stefanie S. Sebok‐Syer, Michael Barone, Alina Smirnova

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Medical Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiology practices and education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersection (aeronautics)Computer scienceData scienceManagement scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing use of technology in health care and health professions education is an invitation to examine how digital sources of evidence are used in making assessment claims. In this paper, we describe how four sets of terms-primary and secondary data; structured and unstructured data; development and use; and deterministic and generative-can aid in examining how data from digital sources are used in evaluating what learners know and can do. Drawing on multiple examples, this paper shows how the four sets of terms can help both developers and users of technology-based assessment systems.

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.398 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on Medical EducationSame topicRadiology practices and educationFrench-language works237,207