MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625049094 · doi:10.4300/jgme-d-16-00851.1

A Call for Collegiality in Residency

2017· editorial· en· W2625049094 on OpenAlexaff
Justin N. Hall, Sherman G. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graduate Medical Education · 2017
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDental Education, Practice, Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollegialityActive listeningPsychologyMedical educationnobodyService (business)Residency trainingMedicinePublic relationsPedagogyBusinessContinuing educationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A residency program can be many things to the trainee: part workplace, part classroom, and part support network. Often, our residency programs become something of a second home. Given the stressful and demanding nature of residency education, we rely on the individuals around us to help create a safe and productive learning environment. The people around us often make the difference between a supportive environment and a toxic one.All residents can remember a call shift when everyone seemed to be having a bad night. One of those nights when everyone had only nasty things to say, when nobody was in the mood to help. It did not matter whether you were the attending, resident, nurse, clerical staff, or medical student—everyone else was the enemy. We all took part in making it an especially bad night.But why? Long hours, insufficient sleep, challenging cases, stress, and lack of staff support are frequently cited reasons. They are simply easy excuses to rationalize our behavior.Maybe it is a radical idea, but our nights (and days) might just go that much better if everyone was collegial. So what does collegiality look like? It starts with establishing a working relationship through a simple introduction to your team—this includes your direct service team, other health professionals, and consultants. It challenges us to recognize that everyone in the hospital is busy and that we're in it together for the benefit of our patients. It means genuinely listening to our colleagues, understanding their concerns, hearing their call for help, and moving beyond self-interest. It requires recognition and appreciation of the unique skill set and expertise that each of us brings to the patient experience.Communicating effectively and negotiating disagreement respectfully through an informed discussion, particularly in cases where generalist and specialist disagree on the reasons or urgency to do something, builds trust and credibility among resident colleagues. It involves making the extra little effort whenever possible.We will not stop advocating for improvements to residency training, including fatigue management strategies, better call room environments, more inclusive work environments, and valuing education over service. As we work toward making those values universal, however, we can do ourselves a favor and treat each other well.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.263
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.263
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.599
Teacher spread0.441 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Graduate Medical EducationSame topicDental Education, Practice, ResearchFrench-language works237,207