MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1436841182 · doi:10.1093/pch/9.9.625

The common postgraduate year 1: A paediatric perspective

2004· article· en· W1436841182 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eric I. Benchimol

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsCanadian Pain Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Medical educationFamily medicinePerspective (graphical)MedicineAssociation (psychology)Residency trainingPsychologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past year, a working group of the Canadian Medical Forum (CMF) has discussed a change in residency training that, if implemented, would affect all of Canada's future paediatric residents. The ‘common PGY-1' (postgraduate year 1), has been approved as a working concept by national professional groups such as the Canadian Medical Association (1,2), the Canadian Association for Interns and Residents (3) and the Canadian Federation of Medical Students (4), as well as by numerous provincial organizations. The Residents Section of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) feels that, as the only national group representing paediatric residents, it should be involved in the planning stages of any reforms in paediatric training. The ‘common PGY-1' has no firm form yet because planning is still in its early phases. The CMF has proposed that a certain percentage of medical students would opt to enter this program if they are unsure of the area of medicine in which they wish to specialize. The possible changes to residency training have been proposed in response to a survey by the Canadian Association of Interns and Residents (3) in which medical students stated that they felt pressured to make career decisions too early in their training. The goal of this common year would be to improve flexibility in medical training. Following the ‘optional common PGY-1', residents would enter a residency in their area of interest (either through the Canadian Residency Matching System or through positions specifically reserved for those from the ‘common year'). Another proposal is that all medical students enter a common year before residency. The former ‘optional common PGY-1' was the version approved by the CMF for further examination in June 2004 (5). The latter ‘mandatory common PGY-1' was rejected by the Canadian Medical Association at their 2004 annual meeting. The exact structure, the number of medical students that would be involved, the funding and the provincial approval for such changes have yet to be finalized. Paediatric residency represents a unique training program during which most trainees are required to spend the majority of their time in the paediatric setting. Only a small number of residency programs currently offer any adult medical experience during the four years of training (five in Quebec). The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada has defined paediatric residency training goals, which do not consist of any time in adult specialties. In 2003, the Royal College proposed the alteration of paediatric residency to require five years of training to qualify to write the certification examination in general paediatrics. Although many groups opposed this extension (including the CPS's Board of Directors and Residents Section), many residents believe that in light of an increase in the volume and complexity of knowledge required to become a successful consultant, a minimum of four years of training is required. In a survey conducted by the Residents Section, many voiced opposition to the shortening of paediatric training to three years to accommodate a ‘common PGY-1' (unpublished data). The Residents Section would therefore oppose any move to shorten training in paediatric specialty rotations. We believe that the medical treatment of children presents unique challenges, disease processes and training goals and that few of these goals would be met during rotation through adult specialties. This position contrasts with that of the Canadian Federation of Medical Students which endorses the ‘common PGY-1' should it not lengthen total training time (4). In light of the position of the members of the Residents Section and the unique training of paediatricians, the CPS seeks to be involved in the planning of the ‘common PGY-1' to maintain the current high standards of paediatric training. The Residents Section does not oppose any move that would improve flexibility in medical training and trainee well-being, and as such, we are open to discussing future changes in the structure of residency. We understand the pressures faced by medical students entering the match following their rotating clerkship year. We are heartened by the fact that no respondents to the survey stated that a ‘common PGY-1' would have discouraged them from entering a paediatric training program. Children living in Canada cannot afford a policy of discouraging medical students from entering paediatrics. The CMF has ended their examination of the issue with approval for the concept of an ‘optional common PGY-1' at their meeting on June 2, 2004. The CMF has called for the formation of an independent implementation group chaired by the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges. We urge this implementation group to include the CPS in the planning of any change in residency training as a major stakeholder in the future of paediatric residency training. We look forward to further discussions with members of the implementation group and to presenting evidence-based plans to our members should changes be proposed at a national level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0090.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainIncentives
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicDiversity and Career in Medicine→French-language works237,207→