Canadian urology resident scholarly performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Scholarly research is a key component of Canadian urology residency. Through comparison of scholarly performance of urology residents before residency with that achieved during residency, we aimed to elicit predictive factors for completion of research activities. METHODS: Electronic surveys were sent to 152 urology residents of 11 accredited Canadian programs. Survey questions pertained to post-graduate training year (PGY), formal education, scholarly activity completed before and after the start of residency, protected/dedicated research time, structured research curriculum and pursuit of fellowship training. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 42 residents from 10 programs. Only 26% of residents had a structured research curriculum, 38% a dedicated research rotation and 43% protected research time. We found that 45% of residents published at least 1 manuscript so far during residency (mean 1.14 ± 0.32), and 43% submitted at least 1 manuscript (mean 0.86 ± 0.25). During residency, 62% of residents completed ≥1 formal research presentation (median number 1.5; range: 0-≥10). Only the level of PGY significantly affected the number of manuscripts published (p < 0.001) and number of formal research presentations (p < 0.001) completed during residency. In total, 86% of residents planning to pursue fellowship training had a mean number of publications and presentations during residency of 1.25 ± 0.37 and 2.25 ± 0.54, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Level of PGY significantly affected quantitative scholarly activity, but the numbers and types of presentations performed prior to residency, completion of an honours or graduate degree and plans to pursue fellowship training did not.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.004 |
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".