A survey of dermatology residency program directors' views on mentorship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is increasingly recognized that mentoring is important in the career development of resident physicians. The purpose of the study was to determine the views of residency Program Directors on mentorship through a cross sectional survey. METHODS: Respondents included program directors of academic dermatology departments in the United States. RESULTS: Fifty-three of 108 program directors completed an on-line survey (response rate 49%). Eighty-one percent of respondents indicated that mentorship played a 'somewhat' or 'very important' role in their own career development and a similar proportion considered it important for residents to have mentors. Fifty percent of program directors identified a need for more structured mentorship within the residency program. Compared to male program directors, a greater proportion of female program directors stated that mentorship played a very important role in their career development (89% vs. 36%, p=0.007) and a lesser proportion stated that it was important for female dermatology residents to specifically have access to female mentors (11.1% vs. 67.4%, p=0.003). CONCLUSION: Program Directors viewed mentoring as an important resource for their residents' professional development. A need was identified for additional strategies to help residents find mentors.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".