Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims and method The structure of academic training in psychiatry has changed in recent years and little is known about the trainees currently pursuing this career path. Two surveys were conducted of academic trainees in psychiatry and the heads of departments of psychiatry. These surveys aimed to identify the number of trainees currently in academic training, the nature of their positions and opinions about the current system of training in academic psychiatry. Results There were 165 academic trainees identified, of whom 101 were not currently in academic clinical fellow (ACF) or academic clinical lecturer (ACL) posts. Academic trainees are located in a relatively small number of universities, with a quarter being based at one institution. In total, 60% of the trainees were in general adult psychiatry. Only 4.6% of respondents rated their academic training as excellent and just over half were certain that they wished to pursue an academic career in the future. Various challenges to academic training in psychiatry were identified by both the heads of departments and trainees. Clinical implications Current difficulties in academic training in psychiatry, such as lack of flexibility of the training pathway, need addressing to ensure the provision of high-quality research and teaching in psychiatry in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".