Enhancing pediatric residents’ scholar role: the development of a Scholarly Activity Guidance and Evaluation program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research training is essential to the development of well-rounded physicians. Although many pediatric residency programs require residents to complete a research project, it is often challenging to integrate research training into educational programs. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop an innovative research program for pediatric residents, called the Scholarly Activity Guidance and Evaluation (SAGE) program. METHODS: We developed a competency-based program which establishes benchmarks for pediatric residents, while providing ongoing academic mentorship. RESULTS: Feedback from residents and their research supervisors about the SAGE program has been positive. Preliminary evaluation data have shown that all final-year residents have met or exceeded program expectations. CONCLUSIONS: By providing residents with this supportive environment, we hope to influence their academic career paths, increase their research productivity, promote evidence-based practice, and ultimately, positively impact health outcomes.
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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.255 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it