Pediatric residents' experiences of a clinical rotation in Adolescent Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although Adolescent Medicine is a pediatric subspecialty, it addresses many issues that differ from other aspects of pediatrics clinical training. The aim of this study was to explore the general experiences of pediatric residents during their rotations in Adolescent Medicine. METHODS: Qualitative methods were applied. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with pediatric residents who had completed a rotation in Adolescent Medicine. Emergent themes were identified. RESULTS: Three key themes emerged: gaining exposure, taking on a professional role, and achieving self-awareness. Subcategories were also identified. There was particular emphasis on the multidisciplinary team and the biopsychosocial approach to adolescent health care. CONCLUSIONS: The experiences in Adolescent Medicine reflected residents' learning, notably gains in the "non-expert" as well as "medical expert" physician competencies. Future studies should explore how the interprofessional nature of an Adolescent Medicine team and the patient populations themselves contribute to this learning.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".