Pick me, pick me: Proposed indicators for collaboration in medical education research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaboration is a regular part of medical education research. There has been minimal formalised unpicking of features which may promote enjoyable and effective collaboration. This paper focuses on the social qualities of individuals to highlight important aspects to consider when assembling collaborative research teams. We draw on the concept of persona from celebrity studies research to formulate five Famousness Dimensions (FD). Then we use a broader range of education and sociological theories to identify contextual aspects of collaboration, collectively termed KRUD: knowing-that/knowing-how, relevant experience, (Un)kindness and demands of day jobs. Together, these form the Proposed Indicators for Collaboration in Medical Education research (PIC-ME). Although developed with tongue-in-cheek intent, the PIC-ME may facilitate holistic judgements of collaborative potential, and offer a mechanism for shared understanding towards international collaboration that sparks joy and furthers medical education research.
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 | 0.048 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".