Establishing a Global Radiation Oncology Collaboration in Education (GRaCE): Objectives and priorities
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
Representatives from countries and regions world-wide who have implemented modern competency-based radiation- or clinical oncology curricula for training medical specialists, met to determine the feasibility and value of an ongoing international collaboration. In this forum, educational leaders from the ESTRO School, encompassing many European countries adopting the ESTRO Core Curriculum, and clinician educators from Canada, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand considered the training and educational arrangements within their jurisdictions, identifying similarities and challenges between programs. Common areas of educational interest and need were defined, which included development of new competency statements and assessment tools, and the application of the latter. The group concluded that such an international cooperation, which might expand to include others with similar goals, would provide a valuable vehicle to ensure training program currency, through sharing of resources and expertise, and enhance high quality radiation oncology education. Potential projects for the Global Radiation Oncology Collaboration in Education (GRaCE) were agreed upon, as was a strategy designed to maintain momentum. This paper describes the rationale for establishing this collaboration, presents a comparative view of training in the jurisdictions represented, and reports early goals and priorities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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