re Canadian general surgery residents ready for the 80-hour work week? A nationwide survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to describe Canadian general surgery residents' perceptions regarding potential implementation of work-hour restrictions. METHODS: An ethics review board-approved, Web-based survey was submitted to all Canadian general surgery residency programs between April and July 2009. Questions evaluated the perceived effects of an 80-hour work week on length of training, operative exposure, learning and lifestyle. We used the Fisher exact test to compare senior and junior residents' responses. RESULTS: Of 360 residents, 158 responded (70 seniors and 88 juniors). Among them, 79% reported working 75-100 hours per week. About 74% of seniors believed that limiting their work hours would decrease their operative exposure; 43% of juniors agreed (p < 0.001). Both seniors and juniors thought limiting their work hours would improve their lifestyle (86% v. 96%, p = 0.12). Overall, 60% of residents did not believe limiting work hours would extend the length of their training. Regarding 24-hour call, 60% of juniors thought it was hazardous to their health; 30% of seniors agreed (p = 0.001). Both senior and junior residents thought abolishing 24-hour call would decrease their operative exposure (84% v. 70%, p = 0.21). Overall, 31% of residents supported abolishing 24-hour call. About 47% of residents (41% seniors, 51%juniors, p = 0.26) agreed with the adoption of the 80-hour work week. CONCLUSION: There is a training-level based dichotomy of opinion among general surgery residents in Canada regarding the perceived effects of work hour restrictions. Both groups have voted against abolishing 24-hour call, and neither group strongly supports the implementation of the 80-hour work week.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".