MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2373156963 · doi:10.2310/6650.2005.x0004.394

395 INCREASING RESIDENT RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY WITH THE AID OF A SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY COORDINATOR.

2006· article· en· W2373156963 on OpenAlexaffabout
Glenn Robertson, P. Thind, A. J. Macnab

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Investigative Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineProductivityMedical educationPresentation (obstetrics)MedicineResidency trainingFamily medicineGeographyContinuing educationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Research is encouraged as part of residency in Royal College training programs. However, resident productivity in this area is highly variable. We report our experience of supporting scholarly activities of residents by the provision of a scholarly activity coordinator (SAC). The SAC role includes identifying and promoting resident involvement in research and supporting residents in preparing research results for scholarly presentation. The SAC is involved in facilitating literature searches, developing research questions, designing ethical protocol forms, assisting with statistical analyses, and maintaining necessary timelines to ensure that projects are conducted efficiently. Within a first-year rotation, the department also provided the residents with protective time, with the SAC and faculty, in order to explore research opportunities and to develop basic expertise. In addition, residents were encouraged and granted the opportunity to take research elective time each year throughout their residency training (to a maximum of 6 months). Our research question addressed the impact of the SAC on research endeavor by our residents. <h3>Method</h3> We retroactively reviewed data from the Royal College program review documents of January 2001 (prior to SAC being in place) and of October 2004 (following 30 months with a SAC) in regards to the following criteria: peer-reviewed publications, published abstracts for presentation at meetings, grants submitted, and grants funded. <h3>Results</h3> From 2001 to 2004, the number of published abstracts increased from 35 to 106, the number of grants submitted increased from 8 to 14, and the number of grants funded increased from 4 to 10. The number of peer-reviewed publications remained essentially stable with 54 in 2001 and 42 in 2004. <h3>Discussion</h3> We are the first residency program to publish the impact of a SAC on resident research activities. Our data indicate that the employment of a SAC results in increased productivity and a better success rate in obtaining research funding. Residents identify a greater sense of comfort and ability in participating in research and in the presentation of results at scientific meetings. We anticipate the increase in the number of published abstracts will lead to an increase in the number of paper submissions to peer-reviewed publications. Income from foreign residents training in Canadian residency programs could potentially generate funding for a SAC position. In terms of the University of British Columbia Pediatrics program, the SAC position has become a key component in the promotion of resident research. We recommend that the expertise of a SAC be available in all residency programs.

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 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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.150
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.150
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Investigative MedicineSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207