The State of Undergraduate Pediatric Medical Education in North America: The COMSEP Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: One mission of all academic medical centers is the education of medical students. The resources allocated to the oversight of this mission vary. The status of pediatric undergraduate medical education and the role of the pediatric clerkship director (PCD) was published in 1995. We sought to provide an updated description by surveying current North American PCDs. METHODS: A survey was designed by members of the Council on Medical Student Education in Pediatrics and administered via the Internet. RESULTS: Eighty-four percent of U.S. PCDs (110/131) and 50% of Canadian PCDs (8/16) completed the survey. Significant differences compared with 1995 include (a) more clerkship directors are assistant professors, women, and generalists; (b) clerkship directors have more time for clerkship activities but less than they perceive that they need; and (c) traditional scholarship is even more difficult to accomplish than in the past. CONCLUSION: The position of PCD is perceived to be a legitimate career track, but most PCDs hold lower academic rank and have less traditional scholarly activity than PCDs did 10 years ago. Although PCDs have more time (40% now vs. 28% in 1995), they still feel that it is not adequate, needing almost 50% of their total time to adequately do their job.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".