Family medicine residents’ barriers to conducting scholarly work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify family medicine residents’ barriers to conducting high-quality research for the mandatory family medicine resident scholarly project, as well as to determine possible strategies to encourage research activity among family medicine residents. DESIGN: Descriptive study using an online survey. SETTING: Department of Family Medicine at the University of Ottawa in Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 54 first- and second-year residents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Family medicine residents’ involvement in research activities, perceived quality of their mandatory scholarly project, intentions for publication and presentation, and attitudes toward potential barriers to and facilitators of conducting high-quality research. RESULTS: Of the 54 residents, 20 (37%) reported that their project was of high quality, 6 (11%) intended to publish their findings, and 2 (4%) intended to present their findings. Respondents indicated that the main barriers to conducting high-quality research were lack of time, interest, and scholarly skills. The proposed solutions to increase participation in scholarly work were to allow full research days to be used in half-day increments and to offer a journal club where residents could learn scholarly activities. CONCLUSION: Family medicine residents found several factors to be considerable barriers to completing the required family medicine resident scholarly project. This indicates that there is a need to change the current approach to developing scholarly skills in family medicine. Greater allotment of and flexibility in protected research time and more sessions focused on developing scholarly skills might facilitate scholarly activity among family medicine residents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.366 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".