Faculty and resident perceptions regarding overnight student call during the third year OB/GYN clerkship.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to identify university faculty, community physician, and resident perceptions of how a schedule that employs overnight call in addition to a traditional weekday schedule affects medical student education, well being, and patient care during the third year obstetrics and gynecology clerkship. METHODS: In July 2007, a descriptive study was performed by distributing surveys to community teaching physicians, current residents, and faculty in the University of Hawai'i Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. A total of 114 surveys were distributed to all current residents, clinical faculty and full-time faculty in the University of Hawai'i Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The survey included questions regarding the effect of the student call/work hour restrictions. RESULTS: A response rate of 45.6% was obtained (52/114). Results demonstrate that 84.6% (44/52) of residents, faculty, and community attendings agree that third year medical students should take call during their obstetrics and gynecology clerkship. Data was analyzed utilizing Spearman correlation and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics. No statistical difference was detected in terms of age or physician type (resident vs faculty vs community attending). CONCLUSION: Most physician-educators believe that medical students benefit from taking overnight call during their obstetrics and gynecology clerkship. Careful consideration should be given prior to elimination of overnight call in the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".