A survey on psychiatric training in greece from trainees’ perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In order to promote the harmonisation of training in psychiatry and facilitate mobility of psychiatrists across Europe, the European Board of Psychiatry is developing appropriate training recommendations. In a recently conducted European survey, Greece was partly under-represented and there is lack of recent data regarding national psychiatric training. Objectives The present survey aimed to investigate, from a trainee's point of view, the degree of compliance of Greek training centres to what the European Board of Psychiatry recommends. Methods An on-line survey, accessible only to invited trainees, was constructed in close adherence to previous questionnaires and guidelines set by the European Board of Psychiatry. Training centres in psychiatry were identified and trainees were invited by e-mail to complete the survey in autumn 2010. All responses were tracked and only valid completed questionnaires were included in the final results. Results Preliminary results from the first quarter of the sample clearly indicate that the overwhelming majority of Greek psychiatric trainees do not have individualized training programs (88%) and logbooks (99%). There is no auditing experience (90%) and no exposure to internal (90%) or external (93%) evaluation. On the other hand, structured theoretical training is available to the majority of trainees (94%) although psychotherapeutic supervision is offered to only 25% of trainees. Conclusions Much improvement had been observed over the last decade in psychiatric training in Greece. However, results of the present survey show that there is still inadequate compliance to some of the recommendations developed by the European Board of Psychiatry.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".