Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hospital pediatricians work diligently to perform a number of important functions including providing quality care for patients and families, teaching medical students and residents and facilitating communication with peers, other health care professionals and administrators. In an effort to ensure these functions are being performed at a high level and to enhance the ongoing development and performance of the individual physician, a comprehensive strategy is required to evaluate hospital pediatricians. The goal of the hospital pediatrician performance review is to provide a specific and effective strategy to evaluate pediatricians working in the hospital environment. The review is designed to be fair, confidential and well-balanced. The evaluation should benefit the individual hospital pediatrician in developing a greater awareness of professional strengths and weaknesses and help set goals for ongoing development and performance. The evaluation should also benefit those charged with the responsibility of reviewing the performance of hospital pediatricians. A comprehensive assessment tool was designed to incorporate input from most major groups associated with the hospital pediatrician to create a “360 degree” evaluation. These groups included the physician (self-assessment), other hospital pediatricians (peer assessment), nursing staff, pediatric residents, hospital pediatrician program coordinators, community-based pediatricians, and patients and their families. Questionnaires (7) were developed for each of the groups defined. These were distributed and returned between March and June, 2003. Results were collated by a research consultant and reviewed and summarized by a senior physician staff member. The senior staff member met privately with each physician to review the performance summary, discuss strengths and weaknesses identified by the review process and formulate methods and strategies to enhance physician performance. Following these meetings each pediatrician completed a survey addressing the perceived specificity, balance, fairness, value and limitations of the hospital pediatrician performance review. Physicians also offered suggestions on how to improve the performance review. The ten hospital pediatricians who participated generally felt the goals of a fair, confidential and well-balanced evaluation process were realized. The performance review assisted hospital pediatricians in developing a greater awareness of professional strengths and weaknesses and allowed each an opportunity to set goals for ongoing development and performance. It is hoped that this hospital pediatrician performance assessment tool can be further refined and shared with others physician groups who believe such a process may benefit their professional development and performance.
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".