The Full-Time Clinical Faculty: What Goes Around, Comes Around
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his 1910 report entitled Medical Education in the United States and Canada, Abraham Flexner advanced an ideal model of medical education that included a university-based, full-time, salaried faculty whose time was devoted to teaching and research. This article traces the evolution of the "full-time" concept for clinical faculty and describes factors that have affected its implementation. Between 1910 and the 1930s, the full-time system for clinical faculty was implemented at a limited number of medical schools, but lack of financing made the system generally unworkable. The implementation of the "geographic" full-time concept during the 1940s to 1960s allowed faculty to be considered full-time while earning much of their income from clinical practice. Even then, there were concerns that medical schools would bring pressure on such faculty to increase their clinical activity for the purpose of supporting the institution. After the rise of private and public payers, clinical practice income came to be an explicit and increasingly important source of medical school revenue. This stimulated a significant expansion in the number of full-time clinical faculty over the next 40 years. In the 100 years following the Flexner Report, clinical faculty became "full-time" and "salaried," but not in the way Flexner imagined. Instead of deriving their salaries from the resources of the medical school, they are significantly contributing to institutional financing through their practice. Flexner's concern about the "distraction" of clinical practice interfering with faculty participation in education has come full circle, remaining a primary issue in medical education today.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".