A Pilot Study of the Effect of a Change in the Scheduling of Canadian Medical Licensing Examinations on Two Cohorts of Students Studying in Ireland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Medical Council of Canada and most Canadian residency programs require international medical graduates seeking training in Canada to pass the Medical Council of Canada Entrance Examination, in addition to the newly established National Collaborative Assessment. In order to facilitate this additional examination, the Medical Council of Canada has altered the suggested examination timeline and examination eligibility criteria. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was sent via an online survey tool to members of the North American Irish Medical Student Association. The survey aimed to elicit differences in the Medical Council of Canada Entrance Examination experience between two cohorts of Canadians studying abroad in Ireland: those who completed the examination before and after the new timeline. Statistical analysis was conducted with independent t-tests and Pearson’s Chi-Square tests using SPSS version 21. Results: Of 24 respondents, 13 had completed the examination after the timeline change. Participants who attended the examination prior to the change achieved higher results (353.8 ± 56.5) than participants who attended the examination after the change (342.3 ± 35.1), although not statistically significant (p=0.56). In the cohort who took the examination after the timeline change, 61.5% of participants expressed discontent with their examination results; 84.6% ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ to feeling disadvantaged due to the change. Conclusion: The new Medical Council of Canada examination timeline has had an impact on the examination experience of Canadians studying in Ireland. Simple modifications to the current timeline are warranted to reduce unnecessary disadvantage for this cohort of students applying to postgraduate training in Canada.
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 | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".