Assembly’s Resident-Fellow Members Move Ahead to Make a Difference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Back to table of contents Previous article Next article APA & MeetingsFull AccessAssembly's Resident-Fellow Members Move Ahead to Make a DifferenceAssembly Committee of Area Residents and FellowsAssembly Committee of Area Residents and FellowsPublished Online:26 Feb 2024https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2024.03.3.28AbstractThe APA Assembly is an excellent place for residents and fellows across the country to begin their involvement with APA.The APA Assembly comprises over 200 regionally elected psychiatrists who advocate for the professional interests of psychiatrists and equitable, high-quality psychiatric care throughout the United States and Canada. Assembly members draft, debate, and vote on policy proposals, especially Action Papers and position statements, which, if approved, undergo further review by the seniormost APA leadership for potential implementation.Since 1987, the Assembly has provided an essential link to APA members in residency and fellowship training through resident-fellow member (RFM) representatives in the Assembly. The Assembly Committee of Area Resident-Fellow Members (ACORF) includes 14 RFMs who represent psychiatry trainee interests at the biannual APA Assembly and Area Council meetings. APA is divided into seven regions, or Areas, each of which has an Area Council. Aspiring ACORF representatives apply to and are voted on by their respective Area Council; the deadlines for application vary by Area and typically are in the late winter or early spring. When elected, ACORF representatives are expected to serve two-year terms in the Assembly: as RFM deputy representative for the first year and as RFM representative for the second year.ACORF works on developing advocacy initiatives through Action Papers and position statements in collaboration with other Assembly and APA components. Furthermore, ACORF members serve on APA councils and workgroups with specialized roles.Most recently, leading up to the November 2023 Assembly Meeting in Baltimore, ACORF members met monthly and drafted four Action Papers. ACORF's Action Papers were among the 19 Action Papers submitted for consideration at the meeting:Promoting Guidelines for the Prevention of Patient Assaults on Mental Healthcare Employees: Proposes that APA develop a resource document providing general guidelines toward preventing patient assaults on mental health care employees in psychiatric care settings.Resident Physician Collective Bargaining: Proposes that APA create a public-facing position statement in support of a healthier workforce through improving resident physician compensation to a level that is both commensurate with one's level of training and keeps pace with rising costs of living. Also proposes outlining the appropriate general roles and boundaries of resident unions.Highlighting Suicide Among Resident Physicians, Its Risk Factors, and Relevant Recommendations: Proposes that APA's Council on Medical Education and Lifelong Learning and ACORF collaboratively develop a position statement regarding the prevention of and risk factors associated with suicide among resident physicians.Creating a Resource Guide to Address Gambling Disorder in Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) Communities: Proposes that APA create a resource guide for health care professionals to address gambling disorder in AAPI populations, utilizing insights from addiction medicine and upholding cultural humility.All four Action Papers were debated and passed at last fall's Assembly meeting and are now undergoing further review by relevant APA components and the Joint Reference Committee. (This committee serves as a clearinghouse of items between the Board and/or Assembly and the councils.) ACORF's success can be attributed to its representatives' enthusiasm for advocacy and openness to seek and accept feedback from other APA members with expertise in topics addressed by Action Papers.Topics of future Action Papers being drafted by ACORF tentatively include suggested DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria revisions, substance use regulation, the intersection of video gaming and gambling disorder, patient gender identity, and Medicaid reform.Overall, ACORF is an important venue for resident psychiatrists to advocate for their communities. It provides outstanding opportunities for professional networking and preparation for future leadership and advocacy roles. ACORF welcomes and encourages greater resident and fellow participation in APA. Residents and fellows who would like to collaborate with or share advocacy ideas with ACORF are welcome to contact LaToya Coles at [email protected].The members of ACORF are Richard Zhang, M.D., M.A. (chair), Kendrick Abad, D.O., Reid Black, M.D., Allison Chang, M.D., Paul Glasheen, M.D., M.P.P., Daniel Grine, M.D., Tremearne Hotz, M.D., Poojajeet Khaira, M.D., Anthony Kulukulualani, M.D., Akshita Lalendran, M.D., Kathleen Naeher, M.D., Justin Nguyen, D.O., M.P.H., Brooke Olson, M.D., and Marc Ruszaj, M.D.ResourceMore information about ACORF ISSUES NewArchived
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.009 |
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; both teacher heads 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".