MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Residentsʼ Duty Hours in the Province of Quebec, Canada

2003· article· en· W1964054327 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anne-Marie MacLellan

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDutyNegotiationWork (physics)Christian ministryMedicineHealth carePolitical sciencePublic relationsNursingFamily medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author describes the five decades of efforts by residents in the medical schools of the province of Quebec, Canada, to negotiate scientific, cultural, social, and economic issues that affect them as trainees. At present, the residents' association, the Fédération des Médecine résidents du Quebec negotiates collective agreements on working conditions and other issues with the Quebec Ministry of Health, not the hospital association. The federation has become recognized as an important body throughout Canada, and its representatives regularly participate in meetings concerning the country's health care system. The author describes the duty hours provisions of the current collective agreement (1996-2002), and remarks that in general, the agreement's regulations are helpful to residents, prevent the possibility of abusive work schedules, and, among other benefits, provide generous time off for conferences, examinations, and study time. However, some residents, particularly those in surgical disciplines, believe that the work-hours provisions are too restrictive, as they wish to maximize their acute-care surgical experiences in the operating room via frequent on-call hours. At present, residents in all disciplines are allowed to remain in the hospital to attend to patient care duties as much as they wish, but they may not be on official call more than is stipulated by the collective agreement. These agreements have also created some difficulties in providing coverage for patients; the author discusses various solutions to this problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicHospital Admissions and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207