MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208867159 · doi:10.1108/lhs-04-2021-0032

A tale of two frameworks: charting a path to lifelong learning for physician leaders through CanMEDS and LEADS

2021· article· en· W3208867159 on OpenAlex

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueLeadership in health services · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoRoyal Roads UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplementarity (molecular biology)Lifelong learningPath (computing)Career pathBest practice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper was to determine the complementarity between the Canadian Medical Education Directions for Specialists (CanMEDS) physician competency and LEADS leadership capability frameworks from three perspectives: epistemological, philosophical and pragmatic. Based on those findings, the authors propose how the frameworks collectively layout pathways of lifelong learning for physician leadership. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Using a qualitative approach combining critical discourse analysis with a modified Delphi, the authors examined "How complementary the CanMEDS and LEADS frameworks are in guiding physician leadership development and practice" with the following sub-questions: What are the similarities and differences between CanMEDS and LEADS from: An epistemological and philosophical perspective? The perspective of guiding physician leadership training and practice? How can CanMEDS and LEADS guide physician leadership development from medical school to retirement? FINDINGS: Similarities and differences exist between the two frameworks from philosophical and epistemological perspectives with significant complementarity. Both frameworks are founded on a caring ethos and value physician leadership - CanMEDS (for physicians) and LEADS (physicians as one of many professions) define leadership similarly. The frameworks share beliefs in the function of leadership, embrace a belief in distributed leadership, and although having some philosophical differences, have a shared purpose (preparing for changing health systems). Practically, the frameworks are mutually supportive, addressing leadership action in different contexts and where there is overlap, complement one another in intent and purpose. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first paper to map the CanMEDS (physician competency) and LEADS (leadership capabilities) frameworks. By determining the complementarity between the two, synergies can be used to influence physician leadership capacity needed for today and the future.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.312 · 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