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 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 | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".