MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001919145 · doi:10.1503/cjs.010414

Surgical training in Guyana: the next generation

2015· article· en· W2001919145 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Brian H. Cameron, Carlos Martı́n, Madan Rambaran

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityGeorgetown Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGeneral partnershipCurriculumCredibilityMedical educationTraining (meteorology)Health careNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pioneering surgical training partnership between the Canadian Association of General Surgeons (CAGS) and the University of Guyana has successfully graduated 14 surgeons since 2006. The association has recruited 29 surgeons who have made 75 teaching visits to Guyana, and CAGS involvement has been critical to providing local credibility to the program, organizing the curriculum structure and developing rigorous examinations. The program is now locally sustained, with graduates leading a number of clinical hospital programs. The initial diploma qualification is being reassessed, as other specialties have introduced postgraduate Master of Medicine degree programs. Many graduates are pursuing additional training opportunities overseas, and almost all of those remaining in Guyana have returned to the tertiary centre from the regional hospitals. The program has succeeded in training surgeons and raising the standards of surgical care in Guyana, but broader health system efforts are necessary to retain surgeons in outlying regional hospitals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.005

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 head0.488
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.052 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207