MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2414567526

Hybrid training for remotely situated general practice registrars--making best use of available opportunities.

2005· article· en· W2414567526 on OpenAlexaff
Bill Lang, Pat Giddings

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Rural Health Research Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)SituatedVocational educationProject commissioningGovernment (linguistics)Best practiceGeneral practiceEngineeringEngineering managementPublishingComputer scienceManagementMedicinePolitical scienceGeographyPedagogyPsychologyArtificial intelligenceFamily medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Regional training providers (RTPs) working under the auspices of Australian General Practice Training (AGPT) sometimes encounter difficulties in delivering the AGPT program to general practice registrars, particularly those in the rural pathway. Registrars who have an employment bond with organisations such as state government health departments or the Australian Defence Forces are a prime example. The Remote Vocational Training Scheme (RVTS) presents an alternative model. OBJECTIVE: To develop, evaluate and improve a system which combines the best of the AGPT and RVTS delivery modes. DISCUSSION: The situations, arrangements and early outcomes from three AGPT and RVTS hybrid training arrangements in 2005 are described. Further formal evaluation will be necessary as the project progresses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.474
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.037 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207