Twelve tips on applying AI tools in HPE scholarship using Boyer’s model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AI has changed the landscape of health professions education. With the hype now behind us, we find ourselves in the phase of reckoning, considering what's next; where do we start and how can educators use these powerful tools for daily teaching and learning. We recognize the great need for training to use AI meaningfully for education. Boyer's model of scholarship provides a pedagogical approach for teaching with AI and how to maximize these efforts towards scholarship. By offering practical solutions and demonstrating their usefulness, this Twelve tips article demonstrates how to apply AI towards scholarship by leveraging the capabilities of the tools. Despite their potential, our recommendation is to exercise caution against AI dependency and to role model responsible use of AI by evaluating AI outputs critically with a commitment to accuracy and scrutinize for hallucinations and false citations.
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 | 0.044 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".