Medical masters: A pilot study of adaptive ageing in physicians
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
AIM: To describe models of career and lifestyle options for ageing doctors that suggest adaptability to ageing and retirement. METHOD: Doctors aged 60 or older from Australia, Canada and the United States (n= 25) deemed to be ageing well by peers were administered a semistructured interview to obtain demographic and qualitative data regarding lifestyle, attitudes to ageing and retirement. RESULTS: Emergent themes included: (i) insights into the physical and psychological vicissitudes of ageing and the effects of such on practice; (ii) the need for adaptations in working hours and choice of work; (iii) the importance of long-term retirement planning; (iv) the usefulness of a transitional phase to ease into retirement; and (v) the need to cultivate a variety of medical and non-medical pursuits and relationships early in one's career. CONCLUSION: These insights might encourage doctors to engage in long-term occupational, familial, social and financial planning and provide potential models of adaptive ageing in doctors for further study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it