MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321111213 · doi:10.1037/cpp0000472

Physician Interest in Hiring Pediatric Psychologists in Specialty Care Roles

2023· article· en· W4321111213 on OpenAlex
Anne E. Dawson, Jennie G. David, Brooke Threlkeld

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsHealth PEI
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecialtyMedicineFamily medicineMEDLINENursingPsychologyMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Integration of pediatric psychology into medical specialty clinics remains an ongoing need in pediatrics, which is dependent on hiring psychologists. The perspectives of physicians who may be involved in the hiring process are not well-understood. This study sought to identify the considerations of physicians in leadership positions in medical training programs. Methods: Participants included a national sample of 64 physician training directors across five specialty areas (gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, neurology, urology, and cardiology). Physicians completed a survey assessing knowledge of pediatric psychology, the current integration of psychologists and trainees, and considerations for hiring pediatric psychology. Physicians provided feedback on a fictional pediatric psychology applicant's “cold email.” Results: The majority (65.6%) of participants reported current psychology integration in the overarching specialty (e.g., neurology); however, integration of psychology trainees and psychology within each subspecialty population (e.g., epilepsy) was less prevalent. Participants indicated varied responses to the “cold email” and identified several considerations in the hiring of pediatric psychologists, including funding, applicant's experience/expertise, and role in the hiring decision. Conclusions: Physician training directors indicated a generally positive interest in working with psychology. Respondents offered diverse considerations related to hiring pediatric psychologists, including multiple considerations specific to the “cold email.” Funding barriers were highlighted as an obstacle. Implications for Impact Statement The study explores areas of pediatric psychology integration and room for (hiring) expansion in five pediatric specialty medical disciplines, with a specific focus on physician considerations in hiring. We offer recommendations for prospective psychologists seeking employment in pediatric specialty and subspecialty care.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.345 · 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