MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314005869 · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000001247

Coaching Surgeons

2015· article· en· W2314005869 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCoaching Methods and Impact
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenThe Wilson CentreUniversity of TorontoSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingMedicineAutonomyContext (archaeology)Grounded theoryCredibilityValue (mathematics)Medical educationSign (mathematics)Qualitative researchNursingPsychologyPsychotherapistSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objective: To explore surgeons' perceptions of and potential concerns about coaching. Background: There is growing recognition that the traditional model of continuing professional development is suboptimal. This has led to increasing interest in alternative strategies that take place within the actual practice environment such as coaching. However, if coaching is to be a successful strategy for continuing professional development, it will need to be accepted by surgeons. Methods: This was a qualitative interview-based study using a constructivist grounded theory approach. Participants included 14 surgeons from University of Toronto–affiliated hospitals. Results: Participants expressed 3 main concerns about coaching: questioning the value of technical improvement (“As you get older if you don't have the stimulation from surgery to get better or to do things that are different and you are so good at so much, why bother [with coaching]?” P009), worry about appearing incompetent (“I think it would be perceived as either a sign of weakness or a sign of inability” P532), and concern about losing autonomy (“To me that would be real coaching where it's self-identified, I'm motivated, I find the person and then they coach me” P086). Conclusions and Relevance: Coaching faces unique challenges in the context of a powerful surgical culture that values the portrayal of competency and instills the value of surgical autonomy. This study suggests that hanging on to these tightly held values of competency and autonomy is actually limiting the ways, and extent to which, surgeons can improve their practice. This qualitative study exploring surgeons' perceptions of coaching revealed 3 main concerns. Although some surgeons questioned the value of technical improvement, the majority expressed concern about appearing incompetent and losing autonomy. Surgical cultural values of portraying competence and independence may be limiting the extent to which surgeons can improve.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.642
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.154 · 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