The Clinician Investigator Program in Companion Animal Internal Medicine at North Carolina State University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A retrospective study was conducted to describe the development and evolution of the combined internal medicine/PhD program, the Clinician Investigator (CI) Program, at North Carolina State University. Separate survey instruments were developed for individuals who had committed to completing both the residency and PhD components and for graduate advisors of individuals who were granted the PhD degree. Results are summarized here. Most CIs reported believing that each component of the program (clinical training and research training) provided mutual benefits and that their teaching skills were enhanced, particularly as a result of instructing students in the Veterinary Teaching Hospital. Opinions among both the CIs and the graduate advisors were divided about the benefits of a combined program compared with a sequential program; however, all but one of 11 CIs who completed the survey would enroll in the combined program again. The graduate advisors were overwhelming positive about the CIs they had advised and indicated that they would welcome a CI as a PhD student in their laboratory again. Suggested areas for improvement included guaranteed salary/stipend support for the average time to completion (six years) instead of for five years, as well as more emphasis on and guidance in identifying a graduate advisor earlier in the CI program so as to smooth the transition between the clinical and research training components of the program. It is hoped that other training programs will benefit from the summary of our experience with this program.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".