MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795840518 · doi:10.4103/efh.efh_354_14

Academics anonymous: A medical student's 12-step guide to scholarly productivity

2017· article· en· W2795840518 on OpenAlexaff
JamesA Bourgeois, Nissi Wei, Ana Hategan, Amin Azzam

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation for Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipProductivityMedical writingMedical educationAcademic medicinePublic relationsSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important aspect of academic medicine is publication in peer-reviewed journals and other media. Early scholarly productivity in medical school may jump-start a successful academic career. Topic choice, search methodology, writing strategies, mentorship, and collaboration are all fundamental to successful academic productivity. The authors reviewed the importance of instituting the germinal stages of scholarly productivity during medical training and created 12 steps for facilitating productive academic writing by students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.051

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.589
Teacher spread0.388 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainIncentives
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation for HealthSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207