Eficiencia de la Zeolita de cabo de Gata, Almería, en la elaboración de morteros con árido reciclado (RCD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Background/Objectives:</b> The child and adolescent psychiatry (CAP) subspecialty training program at the University of Toronto was among the first fully accredited CAP programs in Canada. As one of Canada's largest CAP subspecialty programs, we attract many excellent applicants annually. While objectivity and transparency in the selection of candidates have been valued, it was unclear which applicant attributes should be prioritized. This quality improvement project was undertaken to identify the key applicant attributes that should be prioritized for admission to the program. <b>Materials/Methods:</b> An initial list of attributes was compiled by project team members and feedback solicited. Through iterative design, this list was categorized into "end products," "branding attributes" and "generic attributes." The "end products" were removed as these represented outputs of training rather than attributes on which applicant selection should be based. Subsequent steps involved only the "branding" and "generic" attributes. A consensus-building exercise led to the creation of two short-lists of five attributes within each category. Finally, a paired-comparison forced choice methodology was used to determine the ranking of these attributes in order of importance when assessing applicants. <b>Results:</b> The final lists of "generic" and "branding" attributes developed through a consensus-building exercise are presented in rank order based on the paired-comparison methodology. The overall response rate for the forced choice electronic survey was 49% of faculty and learners. <b>Conclusions/Discussion:</b> This project used an iterative process of consensus building & pairwise comparison to prioritize key attributes for assessing trainee selection to the program. Going forward, these attributes will be incorporated into the file review and interview portions of our admissions process. In addition to emphasizing these priority attributes in admissions, there are implications for other aspects of the program including curriculum and faculty development, as well as guiding the overall mission and vision for the Division. A similar process could be undertaken by other training programs seeking to identify priority attributes for admission to their programs.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".