3. Interactive online software documenting and corroborating exposure to CanMEDS Roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residents are exposed to various situations contributing to the development of their CanMEDS roles. Exposure to different clinical scenarios and teaching situations contributing to the development of the CanMEDS roles could be identified, documented by residents and corroborated by staff supervisors retrospectively. A rapid and thorough method to assess this exposure is not available and could help to monitor a programs strengths and weaknesses. Daily activities developing specific CanMEDS roles where identified initially by the program director and residents. An internet based automatic survey generator (residentevaluation.com) was built to interrogate residents on a weekly basis on their exposure these clinical activities, linked to the seven CanMEDS roles. The surveys where automatically directed to supervisors for corroboration and comments. Periodic and annual reports where sent to the program director. The study group was composed of the Université de Montréal cardiac surgical trainees (n=6). Weekly surveys were sent from July 2006 to March 2007 (Ongoing). Participation rose from 42% to 79% in trainees and was 70% among supervisors. Time to fill the weekly survey was less than 1 minute for trainees and supervisors. The majority of residents documented development of all seven CanMEDS roles on a weekly basis. The trainees were exposed on a weekly basis to a reflection on the development of their CanMEDS competences. Cardiac surgical trainees at Université de Montréal are exposed and develop their CanMEDS roles over their regular training. The residentevaluation.com program allows a rapid weekly assessment and documentation of exposure to CanMEDS roles. The tool provides periodic and annual reports for program directors to quantify this exposure and adjust the program objectives. This software could be used in other programs to assess its efficiency in different cohorts. Frank, JR, ed. 2005. The CanMEDS 2005 physician competency framework. Better standards. Better physicians. Better care. Ottawa: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada Frank JR, Jabbour M, Fréchette D, Marks M, Valk N, Bourgeois G, eds. Report of the CanMEDS Phase IV Working Groups. Ottawa: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. March, 2005.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.025 |
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".