Awakening the right brain and hushing the left brain: Enhancement of scholarly writing skills in an academic setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: In the early 1990s, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) developed the CanMEDS competency framework in an effort to identify key roles that are integral to health and health care outcomes.In order to fulfill the scholar role, physicians must exhibit commitment to the creation, dissemination, application, and translation of medical knowledge and practice.This workshop will provide residents and faculty with an opportunity to develop and enhance their scholarly writing skills for the purpose of knowledge exchange and translation.The session will entail a description of key concepts, theoretical principles, best-practice evidence, and competencies related to scholarly writing within a clinical context.Objectives: Participants in this workshop will have an opportunity to (1) understand fundamental concepts/principles related to scholarly writing by clinical academia; (2) recognize opportunities and challenges of scholarly writing in a clinical setting; (3) identify best-practice evidence for scholarly writing; (4) develop a conceptual framework for a scholarly writing project; and (5) explore creative writing techniques.Teaching Methods: Workshop attendees will participate in several interactive small-group activities and large-group discussions related to the enhancement of their scholarly writing skills.Participants will be given the opportunity to identify and discuss barriers to scholarly writing, followed by potential enablers or strategies to address these barriers.Following these activities, attendees will have hard copies of their barriers and strategies to take away and use for practice purposes.Participants will also take part in mind-mapping and free-writing activities.These activities are designed to engage participants in the planning phase of the writing process and to encourage creativity with limited interference from the critical editor region of the left-brain.Workshop attendees will also be given the opportunity to conceptualize their individual scholarly writing projects.Exercises involving the development of a conceptual framework, problem and purpose statement writing, and other writing essentials will be conducted.Participants will be provided with a workbook that will guide them through the various workshop activities, summarize scholarly writing strategies, list practical academic writing resources, and will therefore serve as a practical resource for future scholarly work.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".