Evaluating Ergonomics Education in United States Ophthalmology Residency Programs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Musculoskeletal disorders are prevalent among ophthalmologists because of occupational risks that include repetitive movements and uncomfortable postures. Teaching proper ergonomic practices early in an ophthalmologist’s career may help avoid outcomes such as chronic pain and early retirement. Purpose: To investigate the level of formal ergonomics education in U.S. ophthalmology residencies. Methods: An Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology (AUPO) approved survey was distributed to program directors and coordinators of 113 residency programs via the AUPO email listserv. Results: The survey had a response rate of 33.6%. Of the 38 programs that responded, only 13 (34.2%) had a formal ergonomics curriculum. The average instruction time was 2.25 hours per year, with didactic sessions being the primary mode of education. Although 80% of respondents from programs with ergonomics curricula considered ergonomic education “very important,” only 60% of those without formal curricula did. Conclusion: Despite sporadic teaching in some programs, there is a significant gap in standardized ergonomics education across residencies.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it