Core competencies in surgery: evaluating the goals of urology residency training in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada and the United States, the relevance and utility of training objectives as perceived by practising surgeons is rarely examined. We sought to determine if urology residency training objectives reflect the broad realities of urologic practice. METHODS: A survey, based on the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada training objectives for urology, was designed and validated. All 418 full-time practising members of the Canadian Urological Association were surveyed. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 63%. Many specialized clinical areas of urology that receive little emphasis in the training objectives were rated as useful by the majority: laparoscopic surgery (92%), percutaneous renal access (86%), transrectal ultrasonography (84%), pediatric urology (81%), extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (70%), urethral reconstruction (66%) and adrenal surgery (62%). Microsurgery and transplantation were perceived as less useful (54% and 22% respectively). Virtually all nonsurgical training objectives were regarded as useful components of training; however, in the opinion of the majority of respondents residency did not prepare them for many of these: the challenges of office and hospital administration (91% and 89% not prepared [NP]), building a referral base (67% NP), time management (60% NP) and providing care under financial constraints (60% NP). CONCLUSION: The study results support the current training objectives and indicate areas requiring increased emphasis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".