MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3013480871 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000003168

In Reply to Chow et al

2020· letter· en· W3013480871 on OpenAlexaffabout
Teresa M. Chan, Eve Purdy, Brent Thoma

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApprenticeshipScholarshipFormative assessmentMedical educationPsychologyCoachingPedagogyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Dr. Chow and colleagues for taking interest in our Innovation Report and having ambition to extend our coached peer review technique beyond medical students. Indeed, it is important that we form communities of practice1,2 around early career faculty members looking to up their academic scholarship game. As Dr. Chow and colleagues point out, early career academic clinicians are often asked to perform academic duties beyond their training. Some opt to pursue graduate studies early in their careers,3 but there is no guarantee that these programs will teach them the academic skills they need to thrive. As grants become scarce and publication pressures mount, it is increasingly hard for early career academics to be successful. We agree that opening peer review to become the formative, coaching process we describe may be part of the solution. Similarly, innovations, like group peer review processes,4 can also help those acquiring skills in reviewing articles, providing them with mentors who offer insights into the mysteries of peer review. Another way for early career academics to gain skills is to become apprentices or partake in high-level faculty development communities. Programs like the Academic Life in Emergency Medicine faculty incubator program,5 Harvard Macy’s educators course,6 or the CanadiEM digital scholars fellowship7 are other possible ways for individuals to acquire and develop their skills. Lastly, perhaps institutions should completely reexamine their promotions processes. Not every clinician–teacher needs to be a great researcher. The time and energy it takes to engage uninterested early career faculty in the art of academic scholarship may be better spent changing the hearts and minds (and policies) of our institutions to acknowledge the modern medical school’s diverse forms of scholarship. Advocacy, community service, leadership, and high-quality teaching are some of the ways great clinician–teachers contribute. Perhaps instead of asking everyone to play by the same rules, we could instead acknowledge that our talents vary, and through structural reform celebrate, invest, and reward this diversity accordingly.3 Teresa M. Chan, HBSc, BEd, MD, FRCPC, MHPEAssociate professor, Department of Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, and assistant dean, Program for Faculty Development, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; [email protected]; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6104-462X. Eve Purdy, BHSc, MD, MScResident physician, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Emergency Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.Brent Thoma, MD, MA, MSc, FRCPCAssociate professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1124-5786.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0460.058
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.018

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.356 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Medicine→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→