Seasonal timing of the Royal College examination in general paediatrics: A survey of residents' preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, the general paediatrics examination administered by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada is offered annually in the spring. Controversy exists regarding its seasonal timing. Assessing the views of residents anticipating the examination is relevant to examination administrators. OBJECTIVE: To determine paediatric residents' opinions regarding the timing of the general paediatrics examination. METHODOLOGY: A survey was electronically distributed to all resident members of the Canadian Paediatric Society with an e-mail reminder after one week. Responses were collected independently, forwarded to the authors and summarized using descriptive statistics. Multinomial regression identified predictors of examination preference and estimated prediction value. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four of 585 surveys (28%) were returned. Common preferences included 'spring of 4th year' (42%) and 'fall of 4th year' (22%). Respondents intending four years of general paediatrics demonstrated a 55% preference for 'spring of 4th year' and 11% for 'fall of 4th year', compared with preferences of 29% and 34%, respectively, for respondents intending three years of general paediatrics followed by subspecialty training (P<0.001). This was confirmed by multinomial regression (OR 2.49; P<0.0001). Increasing training year was associated with increasing support for examination in the fall relative to the spring of 4th year (OR 1.37; P=0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Residents' preferences for the timing of the examination are varied, with 'spring of 4th year' being most preferred. Residents demonstrated stronger support for 'fall of 4th year' with increasing years of training, and if planning to pursue subspecialty training after three years of general paediatrics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".