The effect of clinical academic service contracts on surgeon satisfaction.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the satisfaction of members of an academic department who are funded by a Clinical Academic Service Contract (CASC), compared with those who are not. METHODS: We mailed a satisfaction questionnaire designed to examine surgeons' perceived effect of CASCs on their participation in their division or department and on professional activities (research, teaching, clinical) to members of the surgery department who perform operative interventions. We analyzed responses from CASC and non-CASC members, using t tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables. RESULTS: Four of 9 operative divisions (cardiac, thoracic, neurosurgery, pediatric surgery) are CASC-funded, and 5 are not (general, plastic, otolaryngology, urology, vascular). The response rate after 3 mailings was 59%. CASC responders agreed on the need for the following: improved focus and resolution of issues (p < 0.001, p < 0.02); focus on developmental and future planning (p < 0.001); flexibility to change the level of participation in research, teaching and clinical activities (p < 0.001); recognition for academic and administrative activities (p < 0.002); opportunities to achieve career path goals (p < 0.002); more autonomy in research (p < 0.04); compensation for professional activities (p < 0.001); and increased leisure time (p < 0.004). Responders disagreed that morale was low (p < 0.001). They were satisfied with the following: professional activities (p < 0.019), increased research activities (p < 0.001), quality of research (p < 0.001), more presentations (p < 0.025), increased teaching time (p < 0.004) and ability to care for their patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CASC responders were significantly more satisfied with their professional activities and more optimistic in their divisional roles than were non-CASC responders. Based on these results, all departmental members who perform operative interventions should consider being on a CASC.
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".