2018 Consensus framework for good assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>Introduction:</strong> In 2010, the Ottawa Conference produced a set of consensus criteria for good assessment. These were well received and since then the working group monitored their use. As part of the 2010 report, it was recommended that consideration be given in the future to preparing similar criteria for systems of assessment. Recent developments in the field suggest that it would be timely to undertake that task and so the working group was reconvened, with changes in membership to reflect broad global representation.</p> <p><strong>Methods:</strong> Consideration was given to whether the initially proposed criteria continued to be appropriate for single assessments and the group believed that they were. Consequently, we reiterate the criteria that apply to individual assessments and duplicate relevant portions of the 2010 report.</p> <p><strong>Results and discussion: </strong>This paper also presents a new set of criteria that apply to systems of assessment and, recognizing the challenges of implementation, offers several issues for further consideration. Among these issues are the increasing diversity of candidates and programs, the importance of legal defensibility in high stakes assessments, globalization and the interest in portable recognition of medical training, and the interest among employers and patients in how medical education is delivered and how progression decisions are made.</p>
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".