The virtual hallway consult as an effective means of continuing professional development in physiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A personal learning project (PLP) is an accredited form of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) in Canada, and is a self-initiated learning activity that is stimulated by a question, issue or dilemma in one's professional practice. Many complex cases or issues have no answers that are readily available. Many physicians rely day to day on other physician colleagues that they may consult in their institution. Given the paucity of same specialty Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation colleagues in Canadian centres, the idea of Virtual Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Hallway germinated, to provide a simple tool to extend our hallways to reach colleagues with similar interests across the country. METHODS: The Virtual SCI Hallway is a service set up on Yahoo Groups, with no cost to the users. On this invite-only site, members may post a question, and then all members receive the post by email. Any member may respond. RESULTS: The SCI Hallway has been running successfully for over 13 years. As of January 2017, there were 38 members, with 2124 messages within approximately 324 conversations. Activity has been consistent since 2003. Questions and posts are not always medical expert related; there are also advocacy, professional, and scholar-role related posts. DISCUSSION: Communication amongst specialists about practice and management of complicated problems is important for CPD, yet is difficult in subspecialized areas of medicine. Although there are many chat-pages in different areas of medicine on the internet, to our knowledge, there is not another secure, invite-only site that is low-maintenance and no cost.
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 | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.008 |
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".