The CanMEDS role of Collaborator: How is it taught and assessed according to faculty and residents?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of paediatric residents and faculty regarding how the Collaborator role is taught and assessed. METHODS: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, focus groups at four Canadian universities were conducted. Data were analyzed iteratively for emergent themes. RESULTS: Residents reported learning about collaboration through faculty role modelling but did not perceive that it was part of the formal curriculum. Faculty reported that they were not trained in how to effectively model this role. Both groups reported a need for training in conflict management, particularly as it applies to intraprofessional (physician-to-physician) relationships. Finally, the participants asserted that current methods to assess residents on their performance as collaborators are suboptimal. CONCLUSIONS: The Collaborator role should be a formal part of the residency curriculum. Residents need to be better educated with regard to managing conflict and handling intraprofessional relationships. Finally, innovative methods of assessing residents on this non-medical expert role need to be created.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".