Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, through the CanMEDS 2000 project has identified the role of professional as 1 of 7 roles for which physicians are expected to be accountable when dealing with patients. Each specialty is responsible for defining this role relative to their specialty. METHODS: The qualities of professionalism for anaesthesiology were defined through a Delphi process involving Canadian anaesthesiology educators. The panellists took part in 3 rounds that identified qualities in 3 distinct areas of professionalism - humanistic qualities, personal development qualities and anaesthesiology meta-competences. RESULTS: A total of 23 of 29 anaesthesiologists responded (79%) in round 1, with response rates to rounds 2 and 3 being 72% and 69%, respectively. Of the original 36 qualities, some were combined, definitions were changed in 23, 11 qualities were added and 4 were deleted, leaving a list of 40 qualities. DISCUSSION: There is considerable interest in this issue among the Canadian educators in postgraduate anaesthesiology. Consensus on important professional qualities for anaesthesiologists was obtained through the Delphi technique. These qualities will form the basis of identifiable professional behaviours to which anaesthesiologists should aspire.
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 | 0.054 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".