MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909912288

Transitioning to academia: Exploring the experience of new family medicine faculty members at the beginning of their academic careers.

2018· article· en· W2909912288 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michelle Levy, Sudha Koppula, Judith Belle Brown

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMentoring and Academic Development
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of AlbertaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcademic medicineMedical educationQualitative researchMedicinePsychologyFamily medicineSociologySocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experience of new family medicine faculty members at the beginning of their academic careers and determine what factors might facilitate their transition to an academic role in family medicine. DESIGN: Qualitative, phenomenologic study of new academic family physicians. SETTING: Eight Canadian departments of family medicine. PARTICIPANTS: English-speaking, full-time academic family physicians who had been in their first faculty position in a Canadian department of family medicine for 1 to 5 years. METHODS: Data were collected using semistructured, in-depth interviews that were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis employed an immersion and crystallization technique. The transcriptions were reviewed in an iterative and interpretive manner. Thirteen interviews were performed before saturation was reached. MAIN FINDINGS: The following 3 key themes were identified in relation to the experience of being a new academic family medicine faculty member: lack of or inadequate orientation; the challenges associated with transitioning to academia; and balancing the demands of the role. Orientation was often lacking or suboptimal, with participants left to navigate the transition process alone. The challenges associated with the transition to academia included the realities of clinical work and uncertainties about how to incorporate the various aspects of the new role into members' reality (eg, research). Trying to balance the demands of the academic role (eg, committee involvement, manual reviews), as well as finding work-life balance, was overwhelming. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the factors that might help recruit and retain academic faculty members in family medicine, as well as help them build successful academic careers. Orientation for these new members is an area that requires more attention. Clear parameters around division of time, support, and expectations for advancement should be explained at the beginning of new faculty members' academic appointments. Effective mentoring might help new faculty members have a more successful transition and reduce the risk of feeling overwhelmed and considering leaving academia.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMentoring and Academic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207