Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faculty development has a key role to play in individual and organizational development. This perspective on faculty development, which builds on the 2020 Vision of Faculty Development Across the Medical Education Continuum Conference and the First International Conference on Faculty Development in the Health Professions, describes six recommendations that we should consider as the field of faculty development moves forward: grounding faculty development in a theoretical framework; broadening the focus of faculty development to address the various roles that clinicians and basic scientists play; recognizing the role that faculty development can play in promoting curricular and organizational change; expanding our notion of how faculty members develop and moving beyond formal, structured activities to incorporate notions of work-based learning and communities of practice; making faculty development an expectation for all faculty members; and promoting scholarship in faculty development to ensure that research informs practice. Looking ahead, we should also consider strategies for leading change, collaborate across institutions and international borders, and work together to share lessons learned in research and 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 | 0.046 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; 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".