Residents?? and Program Directors?? Attitudes Toward Research During Anesthesiology Training: A Canadian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief We assessed the attitudes of residents and program directors (PD) toward research training in Canadian anesthesiology residency programs. Questionnaires were sent to all 476 anesthesiology residents in Canada and a modified questionnaire was sent to the PD of each of the 16 anesthesiology programs between November 2003 and April 2004. There was a 60% response rate to the resident questionnaire and 95% from the PDs. Eighty-one percent of programs have mandatory research activity, although only 41% of residents think research should be mandatory. A majority of residents were recently involved in a research project. There was a discrepancy between PDs' and residents' views about the availability of some resources to facilitate research. Residents regard the time needed to learn clinical anesthesia, schedule conflicts, inadequate faculty support, and a lack of protected research time as the top barriers to undertaking a research project. PDs do not consider schedule conflicts or a lack of time as important barriers for resident research. Seventy-five percent of residents would prefer to do another academic activity, such as learning transesophageal echocardiography or taking postgraduate programs in education, rather than completing a research project during their residency. IMPLICATIONS: Residents and program directors generally agree about the barriers to resident research. Seventy-five percent of residents would prefer to spend time in alternate academic activities rather than undertaking a research project during residency training.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".