A physician peer support writing group.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Barriers to publication can be overcome through a peer support writing group in an academic department of family practice. This study describes the experience and outcomes of a writing group in a family practice department. METHODS: A writing group was established to provide collaboration in identifying potential research and/or writing projects, to assist individual faculty to complete unfinished work for submission, to match journals appropriate to the individual group member's work, and to provide peer support for faculty members through attention to group process. Resource materials included instructions for authors for various journals and writing support literature. Minutes were taken at each meeting, and the manuscripts presented were tracked. Individual publication records in CVs and citations in Index Medicus were used to generate pre-group and post-group publication records for group participants and nonparticipants. RESULTS: The writing group met 23 times in 36 months. Attendance ranged from 3 to 10 participants. Fifty writing projects were discussed, and 12 of the discussed manuscripts were published in indexed journals. The seven most frequent attendees increased their publications as first author from one publication over the 3 years prior to the writing group to 10 publications over the first 3 years of the writing group. Comparison of the attendees' publication records with nonparticipant members of the department demonstrated an increase in publication success for participants. CONCLUSIONS: A peer support writing group, emphasizing group process and respectful collaboration, has increased the publication frequency of faculty in a Canadian department of family practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.005 |
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".