What counts? Defining scholarship in continuing professional development using a national modified Delphi study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In many domains within medical education, scholarship can have unique attributes. The accreditation standards for Canadian Continuing Professional Development (CPD) require scholarly output from each Office in Canada. However, it is unclear what scholarly outputs might be considered as CPD scholarship. Methods: Representatives from a national cross-section of collaborators within the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada (AFMC) Continuing Professional Development (CPD) network and other national organizations assisted in this project. Collaborators participated in a 3-phase, modified Delphi study from October 31st, 2023- June 17th, 2024. The three phases included: 1) Registration and Ideation; 2) Consensus Process; 3) Group Validation. Results: A total of 31 individuals registered as part of the consensus panel, and 29 individuals (93.5% response) completed the 3-stages of the modified Delphi. The endorsement of 18/31 types of scholarship, including novel forms such as Community Engagement, Testing/Pilot Approaches, and Advocacy Scholarship, reflects an important shift in how CPD scholarship is understood. Discussion: In a first for our field, the results of this study comprise a consensus-based definition that defines CPD scholarship at a national scale. The results crucially inform national accreditation processes, strategic planning exercises, and overall, in expanding the types and acceptance of activities as recognized scholarly work for those seeking recognition and promotion within the domain of CPD. We do so with the voice of our community to inspire new and emergent scholarship. Periodic reviews of these concepts should be conducted, as scholarly pursuits evolve over time.
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 | 0.155 | 0.168 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".