MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Educating Future Physicians for Ontario

2000· article· en· W2025455348 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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