Publication productivity by family medicine faculty: 1999 to 2009.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Scholarly work is an important part of all medical specialties. A decline in publications by academic family medicine faculty during the 1990s was documented. The purpose of this study was to compare the publication productivity of family medicine academicians during the 2000s to that in the 1990s. METHODS: A random sample of 1,500 individuals was drawn from the 2009 Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) membership. We then performed a PubMed search to identify publications by each of the subjects for the year 2009. Publications by STFM members in 1999 were identified from results of a previous study. We then compared differences between 1999 and 2009 in the percentage of STFM members publishing papers, the number of published papers per member, and the number of journals in which publications appeared. RESULTS: The percentage of STFM members publishing at least one article increased from 8.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]=7.2%--10.0%) in 1999 to 20.9% (95% CI=18.9%--23.0%) in 2009. The mean number of publications by those who published increased from 1.73 (95% CI=1.68--1.78) to 2.22 (95% CI=2.13--2.31). STFM members were 2.85 (95% CI=2.29--3.55) times more likely to publish at least one paper in 2009 than in 1999. Publications appeared in 202 different journals in 2009 compared to 75 in 1999. CONCLUSIONS: A higher percentage of family medicine academicians published papers in 2009 than in 1999. There were also more papers published per individual, and publications appeared in a wider range of journals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".