Psychiatry Education Research: The Birth and Development of a New Field
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Medical education research emerged in the 1950s as a new field of scholarship based on the idea that the ways in which medical students, residents, and practising clinicians are educated could be evidence-based. In the last half of the twentieth century, medical education research underwent enormous growth. The journals Academic Medicine, Medical Education, Medical Teacher, Teaching and Learning in Medicine, and Advances in Health Sciences Education grew exponentially in quality, readership, and impact, and new medical education conferences were born. Today, the annual meetings of the Association for Medical Education in Europe, the Asia Pacific Medical Education Conference, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the International Ottawa Conference attract thousands of participants from around the world. Psychiatry has been a little slower to catch the momentum of this field. In North America, the journal Academic Psychiatry publishes articles on psychiatry education and the Association for Academic Psychiatry annual meeting hosts dozens of educators. Together with a growing number of educational presentations at national and international psychiatry meetings and the emergence of groups to support undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing psychiatry education both in Canada and in the United States, there are more and more venues to support and develop psychiatric education research. However, education is a big tent and includes a wide range of foci, ranging from teaching and curriculum development, to evaluation and examination, to leadership and education administration training. The traditional forms of research (be they positivist and quantitative or interpretive and qualitative) as well as a wide range of other forms of educational scholarship (including knowledge translation and faculty and institutional development) have all enjoyed a growing place in journals and at conferences. Nevertheless, much of this work retains a limited North American focus and frequently lacks theoretical and methodological sophistication. High-quality research does not appear in a vacuum, but rather flourishes where there is institutional nurturing and support. At the University of Toronto, for example, the creation of an academic program called Research, Innovation and Scholarship in Education funds faculty and fellowship positions and support participation at international conferences that have, in turn, fostered the development of a cohort of education researchers at the resident and faculty level. Further, strong affiliations between the Department of Psychiatry and units such as the University of Toronto Wilson Centre for Research in Education and the Centre for Faculty Development have helped psychiatrists interested in education research build collaborations with educational scholars in other health professional fields, as well as with scientists from sociology, cognitive psychology, linguistics, and measurement, whose expertise can strengthen psychiatry education research. This In Review focuses, for the first time, on psychiatry education research. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,114 | 0,101 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,062 |
| Communication savante | 0,030 | 0,042 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,013 | 0,023 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».