Faculty development through international exchange: The IMEX initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Faculty development is often local and international experiences are usually limited to conferences and courses. In 2006, five schools across the globe decided to enhance international faculty experiences through an exciting new collaboration: the International Medical Educators Exchange (IMEX) initiative. METHOD: Twice a year, one of the five schools in the Netherlands, Canada, Sweden and the UK organizes a week of faculty development activities for experienced medical educators from each school, including group discussions, short presentations, observations and active engagement in local education, one-on-one meetings with local faculty members, and many opportunities for in-depth discussion. We administered a survey to evaluate the impact of this international exchange. RESULTS: By August 2013, 31 IMEX scholars had attended at least one of the 14 site visits held; most of them (29) had attended 3-5 site visits. Responding IMEX alumni (55%, N = 16) felt that their experiences impacted their personal competence and international orientation, and to some extent their career, their daily work and their institution. Most features of the IMEX program were valued as highly important and highly successful. DISCUSSION: IMEX has established itself as an important additional faculty development opportunity for those medical educators who wish to develop and pursue a career in education.
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 | 0.028 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".