Mentoring Young Researchers: Can the Donald J Cohen Fellowships Model be Applicable and useful to Australasian Psychiatry?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the experience with the Donald J Cohen Fellowship program of the International Association for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied Professions (IACAPAP) and examine whether this model may be applied by the RANZCP to attract and support young researchers in Australasia. METHODS: The program at the September 2006 IACAPAP conference included 50 young researchers, 16 mentors and 8 'host fellows', and consisted of exclusive poster sessions, daily small-group mentoring meetings, oral presentation of selected papers, and a summary and feedback session. RESULTS: Informal feedback from mentors, mentees and conference organisers was very positive. CONCLUSIONS: A proposal about funding, participants and activities is presented. This suggests that a mentoring model similar to the Donald J Cohen Fellowship program can be easily conducted in Australasia. Implementing a program of this type would give College Fellows, the Australian Medical Council, the Commonwealth Government and other relevant organizations a clear message that the RANZCP is seriously committed to fostering and supporting research.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".