191: Pediatric Resident Driven Health Advocacy Projects: Five Years of Success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both the CPS and the Royal College require pediatricians to be strong advocates for the health and well being of their patients. Although pediatric residents are taught to identify the need for advocacy, they are given few opportunities for and required rarely to take an active role in advocacy. Since 2009, the pediatric residency program at the University of Manitoba required PGY3 residents to collaboratively complete a group health advocacy project. To describe the success of a yearly, collaborative resident-driven health advocacy project. Each PGY3 cohort of pediatric residents is required to work collaboratively to identify a health need and respond to that need by developing and implementing an advocacy project. The residents are provided with faculty supervisors, dedicated time, and start-up funds. A business plan with objectives, timeline, and measureable outcomes is required by September 1 with an interim report by December 31. A final written report is required by June 30 along with a group presentation at Pediatric Grand Rounds. During the past five years, each cohort successfully developed, implemented and completed a unique advocacy project (Table 1). Four projects relate directly to position statements from the CPS with two focusing on areas of provincial deficiency outlined in the CPS Status Report 2012. For three projects, residents lobbied the provincial government for legislative change, successfully resulting in three new legislations. A collaborative resident-driven health advocacy project is possible and has been highly successful. Provided with the time and minimal resources, each cohort of pediatric residents has developed and completed relevant and unique projects. The short term and long term impact of the projects has been immense.
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 | 0.042 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.010 |
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".