Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We are pleased to reprint Dr Tugwell's call to arms on the revitalization of academic medicine, which first appeared in the British Medical Journal on March 13, 2004. Dr Tugwell outlines an international project in this area. We hope there will be readers who will join in to volunteer to help revitalize academic medicine. Drs Noni MacDonald and Elizabeth Ford-Jones Co-Editors-in-Chief The BMJ and a range of partners, including other journals published by the BMJ Publishing Group, the Lancet, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Dutch Journal of Medicine, Medical Journal of Australia, Croatian Medical Journal, the Academy of Medical Sciences, and many others have initiated a project to bring people together to debate whether the existing structure of academic medicine is still fundamentally sound and, if not, to propose alternatives to it (1). I have taken on the challenge of coordinating this project, and I invite readers to join me in this enterprise. To achieve the project's broad goals (box 1) we begin from the position that “more of the same” is not enough. We need to be free to propose radical changes to the fundamental nature of academic medicine (is the balance between bench and applied research all wrong?); its name (should it become “academic health care” or should we drop “academic”?); its home base (are hospitals the wrong place to train doctors?); its relation to service (why are they so often far apart?); its methods of training and certification (should medical education be lecture based and far shorter?); and its responsibilities (should it be held accountable for inequities in health care at the global level?). Our approach will be inclusive and is designed to ensure a broad input of opinions. Rather than allowing the process to be taken over by a few experts with vested interests, we will build consensus by inviting a range of global stakeholders to contribute their views. We are especially interested in the views of the “customers” of academic medicine – patients, politicians, the public. Anyone can contribute their views right now, as a rapid response to this article at bmj.com. In addition, our project web page is under development (www.bmj.com/academicmedicine), and this will contain regular updates, news, and collected resources. The proposed structure is as follows. The pivotal group will be an international working party whose composition will include knowledge and competency across the dimensions of global health and basic to applied health-care research, representing the range of constituents (medical students, postgraduates, junior faculty, established academics – especially women). Supported by four advisory groups (box 2) and made up of approximately eight individuals, the working party will begin by answering four questions. Firstly, what are the roles of academic medicine? Secondly, how well is academic medicine carrying out these roles? Responses to the earlier BMJ editorial launching this initiative have already nominated a wide array of (but no clear consensus about) perceived failures, including failing to serve the public good, lack of a global perspective, an unnecessary dichotomy between education and research, various shortcomings in medical education, and inadequate numbers of and career paths for well trained medical academics (2). Thirdly, why is academic medicine failing to fulfil its roles? Reasons might include inadequate leadership, a failure to translate discoveries into benefits for patients, inappropriate incentives to take up or maintain an academic career (especially among women), deficient mentoring for aspiring academics, lack of appreciation of the benefits of academic medicine by elected representatives, and poor integration with other health services. Many of the reasons will be economic but we need to examine ethical and moral explanations as well. Finally, for each failure, what ought to be done about it? Given economic constraints in countries with high and low income, special attention will go to strategies that call for no additional funding. We will, however, welcome strategies that call for the reallocation of funding. We welcome strategies for how academic medicine can contribute to national and global health. These strategies will be combined and formulated into concrete proposals for action. We need your help. To nominate a member of the working party, join a group, or register your views, send a rapid response to bmj.com or contact our project manager, Jocalyn Clark, at jclark@bmj.com.
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 | 0,051 | 0,117 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,013 | 0,020 |
| Communication savante | 0,031 | 0,029 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,030 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,064 | 0,076 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,071 | 0,040 |
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 ».