MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157816429 · doi:10.1080/03601270802505616

Geriatric Training Needs of Nursing-Home Physicians

2009· article· en· W2157816429 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emily Lubart, Refael Segal, Vera Rosenfeld, Jack Madjar, Michael Kakuriev, Arthur Leibovitz

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Gerontology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeriatricsCurriculumMedicineNursing homesNursingQuarter (Canadian coin)Family medicineDementiaMedical educationPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical care in nursing homes is not provided by board-licensed geriatricians; it mainly comes from physicians in need of educational programs in the field of geriatrics. Such programs, based on curriculum guidelines, should be developed. The purpose of this study was to seek input from nursing home physicians on their perceived needs for training in geriatrics. A mail questionnaire survey was sent to nursing home physicians regarding their opinion on the most needed subjects and preferred training methods. Of the 210 surveys mailed, 132 (63%) were returned. More than a quarter of the respondents had not had any kind of geriatric medical education. A desire for geriatric training was evident, preferably in the form of courses and periodic seminars. Use of medications, infectious diseases, depression, dementia and cardiac disorders were the most important topics indicated by the respondents. These data can be of help in preparing the curriculum for a continuous medical education program in geriatrics, preferably in the form of courses and periodic seminars.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational GerontologySame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207