Evaluation plan of the 6for6 research skills program for rural and remote physicians
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overwhelming issues and barriers often prevent rural and remote physicians (RRPs) from pursuing the many socially accountable research questions they encounter on a daily basis. Although research training programs can empower RRPs to rise to these challenges, there is a lack of evidence on how they should be developed and refined. At Memorial University, a faculty development program (FDP) called 6for6 has been helping RRPs surmount their research quagmires and engage in scholarship since 2014. After an initial three-year (2014-17) pilot, we prepared a detailed plan to evaluate the 6for6 research FDP for RRPs and inform future years of delivery. Using a modified Delphi method and participatory action model a group of program team members, stakeholders and evaluation experts developed an evaluation plan including a logic model and an evaluation matrix addressing five key themes. To our knowledge, this is the first evaluation plan for a research-focused FDP targeting RRPs. While this plan was developed specifically for the 6for6 FDP, our approach to its development may be useful to any institution interested in evaluating an FDP with limited resources.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it