MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016103281 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000003341

Leadership Development for Future Medical School Deans: Outcomes of the AAMC Council of Deans Fellowship Program

2020· article· en· W3016103281 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret Steele, Steve Pennell, John E. Prescott, Nicole Sweeney, Ann Steinecke, P.F. Buckley

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemographicsMedical educationMedicineGraduate medical educationMedical schoolProgram directorLeadership developmentFamily medicinePsychologyPolitical scienceAccreditationPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine the outcomes of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Council of Deans (COD) Fellowship Program with respect to participants' achieving the goals of becoming a medical school dean and developing leadership skills, and to ascertain fellows' views about the program's value, beneficial aspects, and areas for improvement. METHOD: The 37 COD fellows from 2002 to 2016 were invited to participate in a 2017 survey addressing demographics, training, current leadership position, and value of the program. The survey also included 3 open-ended questions. A 2018 web-based search was conducted to determine fellows' senior leadership roles since their program participation. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 73% (27/37). The majority of respondents were male (82%, 22), aged 51-70 (89%, 25), and white (82%, 22). The top 5 medical specialties reported were internal medicine, pediatrics, anesthesiology, psychiatry, and surgery. Most respondents (63%, 17) reported having a graduate degree. All reported being in leadership positions in academia and/or health care. The web-based search found that 27% (10/37) of the fellows became medical school deans (average tenure 5.6 years); 2 fellows became deans of other types of schools. Overall, survey respondents perceived the program as valuable. Respondents identified shadowing a dean mentor, attending COD meetings, and attending the AAMC Executive Development Seminar for Deans as the most valuable program components. The majority (88%, 23/26) indicated their fellow experience persuaded them to pursue being a dean; 2 (8%) indicated it did not. Respondents identified 4 key opportunities for program improvement: more sponsorship by deans, development of a learning community, enhanced mentoring, and coaching. CONCLUSIONS: The COD Fellowship Program appears to be successful in preparing senior faculty to become deans and assume other senior leadership roles in academia and/or health care. Fellows' feedback will be used to inform future revisions to the program.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.286
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.078 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicDiversity and Career in MedicineFrench-language works237,207