Assessment of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Fellowship Programs Website
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to assess the comprehensiveness of the Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (REI) fellowship program websites in North America. All active REI fellowship program websites in the United States of America (USA) and Canada were evaluated and assessed using 72-point scoring criteria. Any fellowship programs without publicly accessible websites were excluded. The scoring criteria consisted of the following domains - recruitment, faculty information, fellow information, research and education, surgical program, clinical work, benefits and career planning, wellness, and environment. We identified 49 REI fellowship programs in the USA and nine in Canada of which 47 A programs and all Canadian programs had an accessible website. The mean score was significantly higher for USA program websites (61.5% (USA) versus 47.7% (Canada); p<0.001). The "wellness" domain had the highest prevalence of criteria (85.3% of websites) across all program websites, whereas the "fellow information" domain had the lowest (20.0% of websites). In conclusion, American REI fellowship program websites included more program-related content, compared to Canadian program websites.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".