MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Educating Future Physicians for Ontario

2000· article· en· W2025455348 on OpenAlexaffabout
R F Maudsley, Donald Wilson, V R Neufeld, Brian Hennen, Michael Devillaer, J Wakefield, John MacFadyen, Jeffrey Turnbull, W. Wayne Weston, Merrilee G. Brown, Jason R. Frank, Denyse Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristian ministryMedical educationProgram directorFamily medicineMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1990, a collaborative project was launched to determine what the people of Ontario expect of their physicians and how the programs that prepare future physicians should be changed in response. The project, called Educating Future Physicians for Ontario (EFPO), brought together the five Ontario medical schools, the Council of Ontario Faculties of Medicine (COFM); a nonprofit, charitable organization, Associated Medical Services (AMS); and the Ontario Ministry of Health. The first phase ran for five years and was described in the November 1998 issue of Academic Medicine. After an external review, the project was continued for a second phase (EFPO II) for four more years until December 1998; that second phase is the topic of this article. EFPO II (1) focused more on residents' education; (2) emphasized four of the EFPO I-created physician roles in project activities; (3) maintained the province-wide, inter-institutional medical education framework of phase I, but fostered greater involvement of the seven sites (five medical schools and two regional health centers) in project activities; (4) stressed five project components (e.g., needs assessment and community partnerships) and worked for collaboration among components at all sites; (5) enhanced the original EFPO I Fellowship Program by adding residents and community fellows to the existing fellowships and by initiating leadership development activities, all of which bode well for the future leadership of medical education in Ontario. Students and residents played a vital role in EPFO II. Most of EFPO II's objectives were met, but the overall view of external reviewers was that the project was less successful than EFPO I. For example, the impact on clinical education, especially residency education, was less than anticipated. On the other hand, the project helped encourage the wide adoption of the eight physician roles that originated in EFPO I and advanced faculty development and assessment activities based on these roles. A third phase of EFPO concerning continuing medical education was planned, but support was not available. However, one of the funders will continue to support the successful fellowship and leadership program and the provincial education network for the next three years. Overall, the two phases of EFPO substantially modified medical education in Ontario to make it more responsive to evolving social needs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.415 · 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
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

Citations46
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207