Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical leadership: development and practice edition twoTo us -as editors -this special edition is even more special!This second journal edition dedicated to medical leadership highlights a strong movement, world-wide, to explore, investigate, and improve the role of the medical profession in shaping health reformand what needs to be done in order to prepare members of the profession for an enhanced role in that regard.Regardless of whether a doctor is in residence, beginning their career in a community or hospital, or well along in their clinical journey, there is a growing expectation that they will become involved -or as some of the literature says, engaged -in improvement, reform, or innovation of health service delivery.Government efforts to reform health care ultimately creates expectations that health regions, hospitals, primary care offices, and all the supporting casts, will change aspects of what they are doing to accommodate those "patient-centred" policy shifts.To do so means that all doctors, whether in clinical roles or administrative ones, will be affected.Many authors from the very countries represented by the articles in this special edition, have presented compelling arguments, accompanied by research, to validate the importance of engaging physicians in health reform.Some of the most compelling arguments have been found in earlier editions of the Leadership in Health Services journal.Most suggest that for physicians to become more actively involved in organizational decision making, they must develop leadership skills.These skills -regardless of whether they are for a CEO with a medical background, a doctor in a rural community, a specialist working in a hospital setting, or a salaried doctor in a hospital -position the physician to be most effective at ensuring good medical practice is imbued in service delivery changes.Or, for that matter, in the design of new capital projects dedicated to improved patient care.The articles in this special "special edition" highlight key efforts that are being made to grow and develop leadership within the medical community.Anne Matlow, Ming-Ka Chan and Jamiu Busari are part of an international team that is aiming at developing new leadership curriculum for residents in training.Anne outlines the international effort -called the Toronto Summit for Leadership Education for Physicians (TISLEP)where it came from, what it is doing, and how it is doing it.Ming-Ka Chan's article describes the rationale for the competency-based approach for this initiative: essentially spurred on by a major change in the Can Meds framework (used by 26 countries to guide medical education).In this change, the competency of "manager" is replaced by the competency of "leader".As a consequence, these three articles grapple with the changes required in resident education to embody developmental opportunities in leadership competency development.Jamui Busari's article, for example, explores the challenges in assessing leadership growth and development.Six other articles explore the challenges of growing leadership capability after medical school graduation.Colleen Grady examines the phenomenon of complexity and its implications for physician leaders -a valuable perspective for anyone seeking to LHS 29,3 218
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.285 | 0.197 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".