Factors that Affect Satisfaction with Neonatal-Perinatal Fellowship Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to assess neonatal fellows' satisfaction with their training and the role of mentorship. A 31-question survey was sent to all second- and third-year fellows in the United States and Canada (n = 304). Responses were received from 201 fellows (66% response rate). Respondents were evenly distributed between second- and third-year fellows. Overall, 75% were satisfied with their training. Eighty percent had a mentor on the neonatal faculty. Only 2.5% believed that they would not fulfill the sub-board research requirement, but another 24% were unsure of completion. The presence of a mentor correlated with being prepared for academic practice (p = 0.013) and plans to enter academic practice (p = 0.031). Correlation between mentorship and completion of the research requirement showed a trend (p = 0.09). Twenty-five percent of neonatal fellows are not satisfied with their training and believed that they may not complete their research requirement. Fellows who had a mentor were more prepared for academic practice and were more likely to be satisfied with their fellowship training. Mentorship is important in neonatal training programs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".