Follow-up of Participants in the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Scholars’ Program, 2006 to 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) Scholars' Program (previously known as the Bright Lights Course) is designed to encourage trainees to consider a subspecialty career in gastroenterology. A formal analysis of the Scholars' Program performed in 2007 revealed that 82% of participants invited to the program pursued or were planning to pursue a career in gastroenterology. The positive results are consistent with the CAG's strategic plan of developing "the next generation of gastroenterology clinical practitioners, researchers, educators, and leaders" and to "attract, train, and retain the best and the brightest to gastroenterology". The present study was a follow-up analysis of participants in the Scholars' Program between 2006 and 2012. Although 93.1% of participants had an interest in gastroenterology before attending the Scholars' Program, the majority (68.7%) reported a greater interest in gastroenterology after the program. Similar to the study from 2007, the present study again illustrates the importance and success of the Scholars' Program in generating interest and retaining candidates in gastroenterology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".