Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities (IAMRA) will hold its 10th Biennial Conference on Medical Regulation in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Oct. 2–5, 2012. With the theme “Medical Regulation in the Real World: Bringing Evidence to Bear,” the conference will bring together more than 250 delegates representing more than 30 countries.Conference delegates will discuss the importance of the use of evidence in medical regulation and will spend a significant portion of their time building on the work completed by delegates at the 2010 meeting — which focused on assembling global best practices in medical regulation.As the effort to compile best practices continues, delegates will focus on three key content areas: registration and licensure, complaints and resolution, and quality assurance of a physician's practice.The program consists of a combination of plenary and breakout sessions, along with presentations of oral abstracts, workshops and posters. All sessions are designed to be relevant to every participant regardless of their level of expertise, resources or the current status of their regulatory processes and infrastructure.Preceding the 2012 conference is the half-day IAMRA Institute: Medical Regulation 101, which will focus on the essential practice aspects and challenges for medical regulators. The institute offers an excellent opportunity to meet and establish relationships with colleagues from other jurisdictions prior to the conference.To register for the 2012 IAMRA Conference on Medical Regulation, visit www.buksa.com/IAMRA.The International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities has announced its newest member, the Brazilian General Medical Council. IAMRA currently has 72 members from 35 countries. The Brazilian General Medical Council was founded in 1951.Source: IAMRA website, August 2012The Medical Council of Canada (MCC) is holding a series of special events and activities throughout 2012 as it celebrates its centennial year.During the course of the year, the Council is sponsoring an invitational workshop on physician assessment for university medical faculty in Canada. Following each workshop, the MCC will host a reception to bring together the university's medical faculty with representatives from the provincial medical regulatory authority.Also in conjunction with its 2012 Annual Meeting, the Council will host the biennial conference of the International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities (IAMRA), Oct. 2–5.Source: Medical Council of Canada website, August 2012The General Medical Council (GMC) of the United Kingdom (UK) and the UK's four health departments have agreed on minimum requirements that doctors must meet before they go through the UK's new re-licensure process, known as Revalidation.The Revalidation system, which has been evolving over the last several years in the UK, is similar to the FSMB's Maintenance of Licensure (MOL) concept, which is just moving forward in the United States.The GMC announced that it will begin revalidating physicians at the end of 2012, with the first implementation stage of the new system to last until the end of March 2018. A GMC news release noted that the GMC expects to have all physicians revalidated by that time, and “the vast majority to have revalidated by the end of March 2016.”During the roughly five-year period, physicians will be expected to meet a number of minimum requirements, which will be clearly communicated by the GMC. Among them are three key steps: Physicians will be expected to take part in an annual appraisal process, to have completed at least one appraisal based on the GMC's framework for appraisal and to have collected and reflected on the six types of revalidation supporting information required in the new system. These types of information range from evidence of continuing professional development (CPD) and quality improvement activities to feedback from colleagues and patients.In the UK's Revalidation system, according to the GMC, physicians may also bring team-based (as opposed to individualized) information to their appraisal, as long as they have “reflected on what the information means for their individual practice.” They may also use evidence of patient and colleague feedback obtained up to five years before a revalidation recommendation is made, as long as it is relevant to their current scope of practice.In an effort to keep the new system flexible, the GMC said that in compiling their revalidation materials, “physicians may use feedback that does not fully meet our criteria as long as it is objective and focuses on their practice and the quality of care they have given to their patients.”Source: General Medical Council website, August 2012
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.426 | 0.248 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".