The Role of Attribution to Clerk Factors and Contextual Factors in Supervisors' Perceptions of Clerks' Behaviors
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: Novice clinical clerks are expected to integrate smoothly into a medical team, often with little guidance. PURPOSE: To explore medical residents' and attendings' perceptions of clerk behaviors that may aid or hinder this integration. METHODS: Three resident focus groups and 5 attending staff interviews were conducted. Transcripts were analyzed using grounded theory. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven instances of clerk behaviors were identified. Many similar behaviors were alternately perceived as positive or negative, depending critically on 2 dimensions the clerk (speculated motives or personality traits) or the context (timing of behavior or clerk's stage of training). Motives and traits were mentioned nearly 3 times as often as contextual factors, possibly reflecting the fundamental attribution error, as described in social psychology. Supervisors' perceptions of why or when a behavior was enacted were an important factor in their perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: With explicit discussion of this phenomenon, supervisors' judgments might suffer from fewer biases, and students' integration into the team and profession might occur with less ambiguity and stress.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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