The development of a TED-Ed online resident research training program
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: Pediatric health research is important for improving the health and well-being of children and their families. To foster the development of physicians' research competencies, it is vital to integrate practical and context-specific research training into residency programs. PURPOSE: To describe the development of a resident research training program at one tertiary care pediatric academic health sciences center in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We surveyed residents and pediatricians/research staff to establish the need and content for a resident research training program. RESULTS: Residents and resident research supervisors agreed or strongly agreed that research training is important for residents. However, few residents and supervisors believed that their academic health sciences center provided adequate training and resources to support resident research. As such, an online resident research training program was established. Residents and supervisors agreed that the program should focus on the following topics: 1) critically evaluating research literature, 2) writing a research proposal, 3) submitting an application for research funding, and 4) writing a manuscript. DISCUSSION: This highly accessible, context-specific, and inexpensive online program model may be of interest and benefit to other residency programs as a means to enhance residents' scholarly roles. A formal evaluation of the research training program is now underway.
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 | 0.011 | 0.262 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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