MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019088045 · doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000002375

The Impact of Social Media on Plastic Surgery Residency Applicants

2020· article· en· W3019088045 on OpenAlex
Timothy J. Irwin, Johanna N. Riesel, Ricardo O. Amador, Lydia A. Helliwell, Samuel J. Lin, Kyle R. Eberlin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Plastic Surgery · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaMedicinePerceptionDemographicsMedical educationProspective cohort studyPosition (finance)Family medicinePsychologySurgeryDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Plastic surgeons have been early adopters of social media, and the efficacy and ethics of this practice have been studied. In addition, plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) training programs have begun using social media to connect with the public, including prospective PRS applicants. The ability of social media to attract prospective residency applicants is unknown. This study aims to examine the influence of social media on prospective residency applicants and their perception of a plastic surgery program. METHODS: In the academic years 2018 and 2019, we conducted an anonymous, voluntary survey among applicants applying to both the integrated and independent Harvard PRS residency programs. The survey collected data regarding demographics, social media usage, online information gathering, and PRS programs' social media influence on applicants' perception/rank position of programs. RESULTS: One hundred nine surveys were completed (23%). Ninety-seven percent of respondents reported searching online for information about residency programs. Twenty percent of respondents noted that a residency program's social media platform "influenced their perception of a program or intended rank position of a program" and 72% of those respondents indicated a positive effect on their perception of a program and its rank list position. At least 15% of respondents were concerned that engaging with a program's social media account would attract attention to their own social media accounts. CONCLUSIONS: Applicants routinely rely on online resources to gather information regarding prospective residency programs. Fear of attracting attention to their own personal social media pages may limit applicants' engagement with PRS programs on social media. However, residency programs can still utilize social media to deliver important messages, especially as social media usage continues to grow.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.242
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.242
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.299
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.138 · 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