Uncommon Places - Joseph Schwab and the Development of Competency-Based Medical Education
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the unintended consequences of the Royal College's transition to Competence by Design (CBD), a competency-based curriculum in postgraduate medical education. A secondary qualitative analysis using Joseph Schwab’s ‘curriculum commonplaces’ was applied to a data set of interviews with CBD implementation leads across Canada to identify the roles of key actors in the process of curriculum making. Findings demonstrate misalignments that emerged between values and enactment when the needs of teachers, learners and milieu were initially underestimated in design and early implementation phases. These misalignments disconnected assessment practices from experiences of teaching, learning and entrustment. The study contributes an understanding of the sources of unintended consequences and potential resolution through a more thoughtful coordination of curriculum development to inform continued adaptations to ‘CBD 2.0’ as it continues to evolve through the process envisioned by the Royal College.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it