An Evaluation of the Scholarly Activity Guidance and Evaluative (SAGE) Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p>This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Objective: To evaluate the SAGE program five years following implementation. Methods: Our program evaluation was based on Guskey's five-level framework for evaluation of professional development. Residents and supervisors were invited to participate. Participants' reactions, learning, perceived organization support, use of new knowledge or skills and learning outcomes were examined through questionnaires and interviews. Results: 54% of residents and 65% supervisors were mostly or very satisfied with SAGE. 75% of residents felt there was moderate or great institutional support of resident research. Most residents and supervisors reported satisfaction with institutional research resources. Residents participating in the SAGE program reported a greater number of grant submissions and awards, but fewer conference presentations. Conclusions: SAGE has been well received by residents and supervisors. Findings suggest the program has fostered the development of research abilities and improved institutional support. It remains unclear if demonstrable learning outcomes have increased since program implementation. We also identified several barriers which will serve as targets for program improvement in future.</ns4:p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".