Publication Productivity of Orthopaedic Surgery Chairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As academic leaders, orthopaedic chairs represent role models for scholarly activities. Despite the importance of journal publications as a measure of scholarly activity, data on the publication productivity of orthopaedic chairs remain limited. The goals of this study were to record the publication productivity of orthopaedic chairs and evaluate the extent to which they maintained their scholarly activity while serving as chairs. METHODS: The chairs of all orthopaedic residency programs in the United States were identified through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) web site, and were confirmed by information found on the web site of each orthopaedic program that was included in the study. University and non-university chairs were defined based on affiliation of the program with a medical school. The publication records of the program chairs were retrieved through the Scopus database. RESULTS: During the 7 years prior to their appointment to chair, the mean number of total publications was significantly higher for university chairs (n = 58.6, range 0 to 217) than for non-university chairs (n = 29.1, range 0 to 13) (p = 0.003). The mean number of publications per year during the 7 years leading up to the chair position was 4.66 (range, 0 to 25) for the university chairs, and 2.29 (range, 0 to 10.9) for the non-university group (p = 0.02). While serving as chair, the mean number of publications per year significantly decreased among the university chairs to 3.75 (range, 0 to 32.8; p = 0.015), whereas no significant change was observed among non-university chairs. The mean percentage of first authorships was not significantly different between university and non-university chairs. Both groups showed significant declines in first authorships while serving as chair. CONCLUSIONS: At the time of becoming chair, the average university chair had published approximately 60 manuscripts, whereas the average non-university chair had published approximately 30 manuscripts. While serving as chair, the number of publications per year significantly decreased for university chairs. Among all chairs, the percentage of first authorships significantly decreased while serving as chair.
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 | 0.013 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
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".