4. Leadership in postgraduate medicine: Results from the first annual chief resident leadership workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the spring of 2006, chief and senior residents were surveyed to determine how they prepared for their senior administrative/leadership role, what topics should be included in a leadership workshop and how this workshop should be delivered. Overall, 32.3% had no prior contact with the previous chief resident. Among those prepared, 46% consulted previous chiefs/seniors and/or program directors. Eighty-five percent agreed that a leadership workshop would be beneficial for future chiefs. Using the results from this environmental scan, a planning committee was formed to design the First Annual Chief Resident Leadership Workshop, held in August 2006, to identify and develop leadership skills while providing them with the resources to ease their transition into this senior administrative role. Seven sessions were offered: Your Role as Chief Resident, Mentorship, overview of the residents’ work/education contract, Personality Inventory (i.e. Myers-Briggs), Anti-Racism and Harassment, Resident Wellness and Public Speaking. A keynote address on leadership in academic medicine was given by a well-known Canadian clinician leader. To reinforce the experience, a resource binder and handbook was distributed to all participants. Quality and content of each session was evaluated using on a 5-point Likert scale. Mean scores were calculated. Mentorship scored the highest in terms of quality (4.46) and content (4.47), followed by Leadership in Academic Medicine (4.43 and 4.62, respectively). Over 90 % agreed that a leadership program is necessary. Parallel to our earlier findings, many chief residents use multiple sources to prepare for their role, primarily the pairing of contact with the previous chief resident and the Program Director. The results indicate that a formal, centralized leadership workshop/seminar is valued and should highlight the necessary skills set and provide key resources. Susman J, Gilbert C. Family practice residency directors’ perceptions of the position of chief resident. Academic Medicine 1992; 67(3):212-213. Awad JJ, Levenson SM, Osman CH, James S. The impact of a novel resident leadership training curriculum. The American Journal of Surgery 2004; 188:481-484. Kasuya RT, Nip IL. A retreat on leadership skills for residents. Academic Medicine 2001; 76(5):554.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".