Specialist training in Europe: introduction to a special issue of the Journal of Thoracic Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specialist training is a critical issue in Europe and worldwide. The trainee is a future colleague from whom we expect that he will deliver the best ever possible quality of care. This best quality of care encompasses a huge number of prerequisites. On the front line appear knowledge and cognitive skills, and psychomotor procedural skills; competence is demonstrated by appropriate decision-making and application of technical skills. During his training, a trainee is expected to progressively escalate the top of the famous Miller’s pyramid (1). As opposed to technical skills, which are tested in national or European board examinations, best quality of care requires a broad spectrum of non-technical skills including empathy, team playing, leadership, cost control among other. The Royal College of Physicians of Canada has prepared and published a guideline document called “CanMEDS glossary”, which describes 7 fundamentals, yet overlapping areas of competence, centred by medical expertise: communicator, collaborator, leader, health advocate, scholar, and professional (2).
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".