Using Speed Dating Sessions to Foster Collaboration in Continuing Interdisciplinary Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are numerous examples of care gaps that could be reduced through enhanced knowledge exchange and practice collaboration between medical specialist physicians. In this paper, we report preliminary results on using speed-dating sessions (SDSs) to stimulate the development of continuing interdisciplinary education (CIDE) activities. METHODS: In 2007, a 35-minute SDS was carried out during a 2-hour faculty development workshop to provide continuing medical education (CME) directors of Quebec's 35 medical specialist associations with a formal opportunity to quickly share clinical issues and goals. A post-workshop survey was used to assess participants' satisfaction and whether they had met new colleagues, learned about interdisciplinary issues, and discovered opportunities for collaboration. CME accreditation files were audited to assess the occurrence of CIDE activities in the year prior and the 2 years that followed the workshop. CME directors were called to assess whether the development of these activities was directly attributable to their participation in the SDS. RESULTS: CME directors of 26 specialist physician associations attended the faculty development workshop. The vast majority of survey respondents (n = 18/20) were satisfied with the SDS and believed that this method was a stimulating and efficient way to meet new colleagues, quickly share clinical issues and goals, learn about unexpected but important interdisciplinary issues, and identify opportunities for CIDE collaboration. Sixty percent (12/20) reported having identified at least 1 opportunity for collaboration that was worth pursuing in the near future, and 19% of attending CME directors (5/26) developed a CIDE activity within 2 years, as compared with none in the previous year and for the 9 nonparticipating associations. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that SDSs enhanced networking, knowledge exchange, and collaboration in continuing education among CME providers who participated in a faculty development activity on CIDE.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".