Needs assessment for development of 6for6: Longitudinal research skills program tailored to rural and remote family physicians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM ADDRESSED: Rural and remote family physicians (RRFPs) face greater barriers to research engagement than their urban colleagues and have access to fewer faculty development programs (FDPs) to foster their research skills. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: To identify and prioritize skills and services that RRFPs need to engage in research. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Memorial University of Newfoundland in St John's used a needs assessment as the foundation for developing an FDP for RRFPs. The assessment comprised a systematic literature review and environmental scan, key informant interviews (n = 10), a focus group with RRFPs (n = 15), expert group meetings (n = 2), and needs assessment surveys (n = 19). CONCLUSION: The assessment identified barriers to RRFPs engaging in research, priority considerations for the development of a research FDP for RRFPs, and research areas to be included in the program curriculum. This information was used to inform phases 2 and 3 of program development, which are further discussed in a companion article.
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 | 0.067 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".