MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405797916 · doi:10.5334/pme.1272

Proximity to Practice: The Role of Technology in the Next Era of Assessment

2024· article· en· W4405797916 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew E. Krumm, Hollis Lai, Kayla Marcotte, Tavinder K. Ark, Victoria Yaneva, Saad Chahine

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Medical Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData scienceComputer scienceMedical educationMedicineEngineering ethicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of technology into health professions assessment has created multiple possibilities. In this paper, we focus on the challenges and opportunities of integrating technologies that are used during clinical activities or that are completed by raters after a clinical encounter. In focusing on technologies that are more proximal to practice, we identify tradeoffs with different data collection approaches. To maximize the benefits of integrating technology in workplace-based assessment, we describe the importance of using preexisting frameworks from the fields of assessment design, implementation research, and clinical artificial intelligence governance.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.400 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on Medical EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207