MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403540222 · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2024.10.014

A “How-to” Guide for Establishing an Effective Trainee Mentorship Program

2024· article· en· W4403540222 on OpenAlexaff
Kirstie Lithgow, Jordan Iannuzzi, Kelle Hurd, Sunnan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipMedical educationPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mentorship during medical training has established benefits, including professional development, career guidance, research success, and wellness.1–8 However, access to mentorship is not always equitable, varying between trainees and institutions with gender- and race-based disparities.1,9–11 Implementation of formal mentorship programs is a strategy to improve equity in mentorship.12–15 Our previous scoping review of formal mentorship programs in residency training demonstrated that rigorous strategies for implementation and evaluation of these programs are lacking.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.056

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.405 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainIncentives
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterologySame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207