Kurser i grundläggande forskningsmetodik till nytta för kliniker. Tolv års erfarenheter från Sydsverige
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the Department of Community Medicine at Lund University we have given courses in basic research methodology since 1989. The course has yielded 20 points of university credit, the equivalent of one full-time semester of studies, and it has been run part-time, covering one and a half years. Our aim has been to provide a large number of physicians with basic training in research methods, and to stimulate the engagement of new scientific students from the whole Southern Health Care Re-gion. During the first ten years, 138 general practitioners (20% of the GPs of the region) and 202 specialists completed our courses. Up till now, 19 GPs (14%) and 19 specialists (9%) have begun PhD studies. During the last two years, another 100 physicians from southern Sweden have attended our courses, as well as GPs from Zealand in Denmark. We have been developing our course in basic research methods during a twelve-year period, and it is now well established in our health care region. We feel that we have succeeded in reaching the two goals we had set up: to give a large number of physicians a fundamental knowledge of research meth-ods and to recruit and increase the number of PhD students. We believe that medical research and development must flourish also outside the traditional university settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".