MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404840443 · doi:10.32920/27922149

Educator's blueprint: A primer on consensus methods in medical education research

2024· preprint· en· W4404840443 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Gottlieb, Holly Caretta‐Weyer, Teresa M. Chan, Susan Humphrey-Murto

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlueprintPrimer (cosmetics)Political scienceLibrary scienceMedical educationEngineering ethicsSociologyComputer scienceMedicineEngineeringArtVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consensus methods such as the Delphi and nominal group techniques are increasingly utilized within medical education research. This educator's blueprint paper provides practical strategies regarding five key steps for ensuring best practices when using consensus methods. These strategies include deciding which consensus method is best, developing the initial questionnaire, identifying the participants, determining the number of rounds and consensus threshold, and describing and justifying any modifications. These strategies will help guide education researchers on their next study using consensus methods.

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)0.248
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.422
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2480.422
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0130.020
Open science0.0070.015
Research integrity0.0220.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.018

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 head0.369
GPT teacher head0.682
Teacher spread0.313 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207