Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In this issue, we are pleased to include a series of articles on training issues in psychiatry. Our interest in a national strategy for postgraduate education in psychiatry evolved in the course of contributing a chapter to the Canadian Psychiatric Association (CPA) publication Psychiatry in Canada, 50 Years 1951–2001 (1). Covering a wide range of relevant topics, we commented on the factors influencing the current training context, including changes in the practice field of psychiatry, technological and research advances, the emphasis on community-based care, and the emergence of new initiatives from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC). We also noted decreasing interest among residents in pursuing a career in academic psychiatry, accompanied by a recruitment crisis in the field: fewer than 25% of residents expressed an interest in an academic career (2). Directors of postgraduate programs were asked to identify the challenges that they face in providing postgraduate education at the dawn of this century, and their comments may be generally applicable. They identified difficulties in accommodating new training content; the preoccupation with the current resident recruitment process through the Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS); the responsibility for organizing and maintaining the integrity of the postgraduate year 1 (PGY1); the emergence of mental health care shared with family physicians; the emphasis on community-based care; the development of training sites outside academic centres; and more recently, the impact of subspecialization. While these challenges are ongoing, new initiatives from the RCPSC place additional pressures on training programs. The introduction of competency-based training objectives promises more valid assessment procedures, as in the new Final In-Training Evaluation Report (FITER) that is completed for each resident proceeding to the certification examination. We note that these developments in Canada reflect global changes in postgraduate training. For this In Review series, we have commissioned 3 articles. Dr Stephen Scheiber and his colleagues from the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology provide a paper on developments in the US. This is valuable in that they comment on the differences between Canada and the US in the training environment and in assessment procedures (3). It is interesting that postgraduate educators in both Canada and the US are currently focused on the matter of core competencies in the training of psychiatric generalists. The Americans have completed this process, and we can only benefit from their work. Over the past 2 years, the Canadian review of core competencies has been evolving consensually among the senior postgraduate educators on various national education committees. A new delineation of core competencies is recognized as imperative, given the relatively few psychiatrists in Canada, our need for generalists to provide care across the lifespan, and the pressures on our training programs. Dr Scheiber points out that Canadian psychiatry is privileged in this exercise by its small number of medical schools and by the unique overview of the RCPSC in setting training standards, accrediting programs, and examining candidates. In addition, the close working relations between the CPA, the subspecialty academies, and the RCPSC Committee in Psychiatry potentially allow Canadian psychiatry to develop a more detailed and prescriptive set of core competencies across the lifespan for generalists, compared with those developed in the US.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,027 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,016 | 0,014 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,027 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».