Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) is more than a quarter of a century old; yet, very little is known about the career longevity of its practitioners. The purpose of our survey was to examine different aspects of career longevity in the clinical practice of PEM. METHODS: An electronic survey was mailed in November 2008 to all members of the section on pediatric emergency medicine at the American Academy of Pediatrics who were older than 50 years. The survey consisted of 10 questions concerning demographic data, years of practice, clinical load, and retirement expectations. RESULTS: One hundred three of the 408 mailed surveys were returned (response rate, 25.2%). The survey participants were 55.25 +/- 5.15 years old (range, 50-81 years) 70% were male, 84.5% were PEM board certified, and they had been in practice for 20.20 +/- 6.16 years (range, 3-32 years). Fifteen of the study participants had retired from clinical practice of PEM. Those clinically active work on 21.82 +/- 10.95 clinical hours per week, 50% work overnight shifts, 97% work on weekends, 94% work on holidays, and 70% work on shifts longer than 8 hours. Study participants expect to retire from clinical PEM practice at the age of 62.27 +/- 6.04 years and from practice of all aspects of medicine at the age of 66.43 +/- 5.23 years. Sixty-four percent of those surveyed are concerned about their career longevity in clinical PEM practice. CONCLUSIONS: Most senior PEM physicians participating in our survey continue to carry a significant clinical load and are concerned about their career longevity in clinical practice of PEM.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".