Donald Pinkel on Simoneʼs OncOpinion: ‘The Universityʼs (and Medical Schoolʼs?) Crisis of Purposes’ (10/25/09 issue)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Joe Simone's essay in the Oct. 25th issue hits the nail on the head. My students are being turned down for medical school despite high grades and excellent recommendations and when interviewed find that up to $70,000 a year is needed. It is a similar situation with nursing schools, which are also turning away qualified applicants despite the severe shortages of nurses, which is expected to become even worse with the aging population. Unless we quickly increase medical school and nursing school capacities, it doesn't matter how or when we extend “health insurance.” This reminds me of a long talk I had with Ken Endicott when he became director of the NIH's medical education subsidy program when Nixon was President. Endicott's idea was that universal health care would be possible only if surgical and medical specialty fees were reduced. By increasing MD output, competition would result, driving them down so universal care became affordable. I also learned at MCW [Medical College of Wisconsin] that the school had to agree that one half of the graduates would go into primary care to receive federal capitation subsidiaries, so that school reshaped its curriculum. In Pediatrics, I reviewed a federal grant to establish and finance a primary care track that paid the residents on it as well as a full-time faculty member. As I recall, much or most of this went out during Reagan's time. But it is surely needed today! Another problem is the high costs of medical and even nursing school attendance. Back in my time, a student could get through med school living at home, taking the bus, and working part-time. Many from working class ethnic neighborhoods got MDs, and after one year of internship returned to their neighborhoods and served their ethnic kin with great pride, if not with much income (they never turned away patients!). Today, more than 90% of med student are from the top 10% economically. How many of the 90% are aware of the lives and needs of the other 90%? Or do many just want to stay in the 10% or even 5% or 1%? The Ontario Health Plan is the way to go, in my view. My relatives there are well served by it and resent the falsifications about it in the US media. Some little fixes may be needed but there is no opposition to that plan by any political group. Keep up the good work—We need the Simone Commission! Donald Pinkel, MD San Luis Obispo, California [Dr. Pinkel was the first Director of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and recruited Joe Simone there in 1967. Now retired, he also teaches undergraduate students part-time.] Reply from Dr. Simone: Many thanks for your letter. You covered a lot of ground, you make some excellent points, and I am in basic agreement with your assessments.
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 | 0,005 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,015 | 0,023 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,056 | 0,027 |
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 ».