Block to succeed: the Canadian orthopedic resident research experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We assessed the current state of Canadian orthopedic resident research and the effect of protected block research time on the numbers of grants obtained, research projects completed, submissions for publication, publications and conference presentations. METHODS: We administered a 27-item cross-sectional survey containing quantitative and qualitative questions to postgraduate year (PGY)-3 to -5 residents in all 16 Canadian orthopedic training programs in the academic year of Jul. 1, 2005, to Jun. 30, 2006. RESULTS: There was an overall response rate of 45% (85/188) from residents in 15 of 16 orthopedic programs: 56% (48/85) of respondents took block research time of at least 1 month (mean 5 mo). The number of months taken was positively correlated with the number of grants obtained (r = 0.28, p = 0.011) and publications (r = 0.23, p = 0.031). Residents who took block time obtained more grants (Fisher exact test 3.54, p = 0.048) and publications (Fisher exact test 6.09, p = 0.012) than those who did not take block time. About 41% (35/85) of respondents said time was the biggest obstacle to research. CONCLUSION: Providing protected block research time during residency allows Canadian orthopedic residents greater research success.
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 | 0.006 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".