Performance of a Career Development and Compensation Program at an Academic Health Science Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The academic physicians of our department developed a novel Career Development and Compensation Program to outline job expectations, enhance career development, and provide a peer-review process to assess performance. The Career Development and Compensation Program was founded on the principle that sustained achievement in education, clinical care, or research should be valued, supported, and rewarded in an equivalent manner and that reward for clinical work should not be limited by the focus of the university on research and education. The objective of this study was to determine whether the principles of the Career Development and Compensation Program were sustained during the initial 7 years of its implementation. METHODS: The outcome of the 7 triennial reviews that occurred from 1999 to 2005 was evaluated. For the purposes of some analyses, physicians were classified as predominately clinical (clinician-specialists and clinician-teachers), predominately education (clinician-educators), or predominately research (clinician-investigators and clinician-scientists). RESULTS: Each of the job profiles had a similar probability to increase a level within the Career Development and Compensation Program at the time of triennial review. Similarly, all 5 job profiles had a similar rate of increase in their level in relation to the total number of years of experience at an academic health science center. Neither the university academic rank nor gender of the physician affected the probability of increasing a level at the time of the triennial review. CONCLUSION: The peer-reviewed Career Development and Compensation Program recognizes sustained achievement in each area of education, clinical care, and research in an equivalent manner with no detectable effect of academic rank or gender.
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 | 0.018 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".