MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W226209461 · doi:10.1155/2009/431427

Canadian Thoracic Society Governance Review

2009· article· en· W226209461 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Michel Rouleau

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDelphi Technique in Research
Établissements canadiensCanadian Thoracic Society
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCorporate governanceProcess (computing)WonderPlan (archaeology)Process managementPublic relationsMedicineStrategic planningPolitical scienceBusinessComputer sciencePsychologyMarketingFinance

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Over the past year, the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) began the process of reviewing its governance structure as part of the implementation of its strategic plan. It is clear that to remain effective, the CTS must be prepared to adapt to a changing environment. The governance review will allow us to do just that: respond to changes, both external and internal, and build a solid foundation for continued development. This President’s Page will serve as an introduction to the current CTS governance review process and a precursor to a more formal member consultation process that will take place later this year. I will outline some of the main reasons why this governance review is essential and provide you with an overview of the CTS governance review process itself. Last but not least, I will urge you to take an active part in the upcoming member consultation. Reviewing the governance structure of an organization such as the CTS is no easy task – but it is necessary. The current board, consisting of 26 positions representing a combination of functions, diseases and geographic areas, presents challenges in terms of budget, achieving buy-in and meeting quorum. At times, we find that the board is not very nimble and its structure not well aligned with the strategic plan. Moreover, we question our effectiveness in attracting and retaining our broad constituency of specialists, physicians and researchers, and wonder how we can improve our succession planning and member engagement strategies. In my view, one of the most compelling reasons to renew the structure of the CTS is to ensure that it acts as a catalyst to move the CTS forward in its three key strategic directions: research, education and guidelines. Thanks to the efforts of L-P Boulet and the Canadian Respiratory Guidelines Committee, and with considerable support from our sponsors, we have been very successful in creating the infrastructure necessary to propel the guidelines agenda forward. However, the board structure and concomitant funding has not provided the impetus for similar infrastructure growth and development in research and education. There are many challenges and opportunities in the field of research that we must be prepared to meet. Within the current fragile economic climate, our efforts must be intensified and well focused to successfully leverage funding and establish flourishing partnerships. As the National Lung Health Framework moves forward, we must be in a position to provide leadership and take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves. We must ensure that the national respiratory health research agenda is strong and focused, and serves Canadians well. Indeed, we need to ensure that the new CTS governance structure includes a strong research pillar. Similarly, the CTS requires a stronger educational component to guide its broad continuing medical education and knowledge transfer agenda that includes programs such as the Canadian Respiratory Conference, the CTS Scientific Program and the Respiratory Fellow Examination Preparation Course developed in conjunction with the Canadian Organization of Pulmonary Program Directors, to name but a few. Changes are rapidly occurring throughout the field of continuing medical education, whether those changes are brought about by advances in technology or the tightening of ethical rules. It is vital that we be at the forefront of those changes and that we continue to find the best ways of responding to the educational needs of our members. We need a broad and coherent educational agenda as well as effective knowledge transfer strategies for our guidelines. Clearly, we need a strong educational pillar. In addition to ensuring that the CTS is well positioned to succeed in guidelines, research and education, the governance review aims to help us meet the following objectives: effectively integrate the pediatric perspective within CTS activities; reflect gender, expertise, experience and regional diversities throughout the CTS; establish transparent nominations criteria and recruitment processes; increase member engagement; and maintain effective relationships with our partners. The CTS Long-Term Planning Committee, currently chaired by D Marciniuk, was assembled over the past year to help the CTS Executive take on the governance review. Working both independently and together, through teleconferences and a face-to-face meeting, we have examined the issues and started the process of building the new governance model. We have developed a draft organizational chart, outlined some of the key responsibilities of the new committees and sketched out the succession planning process. We identified ways of integrating our relationships with other organizations within our organizational structure, and of building in a mentoring system to ensure that future CTS leaders are well supported. Although the work is not yet completed, much has been achieved. The Executive and Long-Term Planning Committees will review their conclusions before the meeting of the CTS Executive in April; the proposed model will then be presented to the full Board in April 2009 and a membership consultation will follow. The results of all of these consultations will be summarized into a final proposal that will be submitted for approval at the Annual General Meeting in November 2009. Over the next months, every CTS member will be invited to take part in the governance review consultation process. Don’t miss this opportunity to have your say. We need your help to ensure that the CTS remains relevant to you, its members. We also need your help to ensure that the CTS continues to effectively serve the respiratory community and ultimately, help Canadians breathe easier! Your continued collaboration is most appreciated. Respectfully submitted,

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,021
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,927
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,666

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0210,079
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0090,013
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,004
Communication savante0,0140,003
Science ouverte0,0060,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0600,025

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,113
Tête enseignante GPT0,437
Écart entre enseignants0,323 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Respiratory JournalMême sujetDelphi Technique in ResearchTravaux en français237 207