Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relatively low response rate (25 per cent) and the skewed distribution of responses, with the predominance of teaching hospital trainees, casts doubt as to how representa tive the respondents are of trainees in the Southern Division. In addition, the majority of the respondents were interested in and engaged in research. Whilst reassuring in one way, it tells us nothing about the majority of trainees, who did not reply. One can only speculate, but the respondents may be a self-selected group interested in research, and therefore moti vated to reply to the questionnaire in order to assist the 'research ' of others. Previous articles'2 have drawn attention to the importance of adequate constructive help for trainees new to research. There is a suggestion that this study supports this view with the majority of junior trainees reporting inadequate supervision and almost a quarter unable to arrange it. It was also of note that junior trainees were perhaps less able to determine the availability and adequacy of research facilities, as they rated these as less satisfactory than did senior trainees. This may also reflect the relative inadequacy of supervision and guid ance for their stage of development. Although most trainees were based in teaching hospitals, there was, no evidence that placement in one conferred an advantage, as amongst junior trainees there was no great difference between the proportions involved in research. In summary, the limimi: that the majority of the trainees who replied were involved in research is superficially reassur ing but leads to questions about the poor response rate and whether this is related to lack of interest or involvement in research by the majority of trainees in the Division. The perceived lack of 'adequate ' supervision by junior trainees may reflect a situation in which the supervision offered is inappropriate for the needs of the trainees.
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 | 0.015 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.094 | 0.048 |
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".