MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7064842343

Critical Analysis of a Pedagogical Paradigm Shift in Medical Residency in Québec

2023· other· en· W7064842343 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueR-libre (Université Téluq) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Subject (documents)Work (physics)Process (computing)Context (archaeology)Feature (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical progress over the past two centuries essentially took place because medicine became increasingly grounded \nin scientific research, reflecting reverence for rigour, rationality, scientific method, and evidence. In the early \n20th century, the Flexner report (1910) led to this decisive momentum being driven even more rapidly. \nCentral to this history is the content of learning, but also the pedagogical framework of the training aimed at \nthe learning of that content. In the 21st century, the learning content of medical training is clearly on the side of \nevidence and rigour. But what of the pedagogical framework of medical training and, in the case at hand, medical \nresidency? \n \nIn 2009, the University of Toronto piloted a pedagogical approach in medical residency developed by the Royal \nCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) entitled Competence by Design (CBD). \nCBD is a direct descendant of competency-based education (CBE), a pedagogical movement launched in the \nUnited States in the wake of the Soviets’ Sputnik satellite, which was sent into orbit in 1957. Today, the CBE \ntrend is to be found in general education (elementary, secondary, and postsecondary), vocational education, and \nmedical education. \n \nOn what theoretical framework is the RCPSC’s CBE (CBD) based? Was this framework scientifically validated, \nwholly or partially? \n \nThe following pages maintain that the RCPSC’s CBE did not follow an exemplary, rigorous process and is not \nbased on evidence from scientific research, in either general pedagogy or medical education. More specifically, \nwe assert that the Canadian and Québec medical world, in adopting the RCPSC’s CBE, has moved away from \nthe evidence, necessary rigour, and conscientious caution it usually shows with regard to medical innovations. \nAs we move forward in this text, we also briefly examine the effectiveness of CBE’s sometimes co-occurring \npedagogical methods that can also provide at least a partial alternative to traditional residency and CBE applied \nto residency (e.g., technology-enhanced simulation, standardized patients, deliberate practice, mastery learning, \nand competency-based progression).

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0320.016
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueR-libre (Université Téluq)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207