MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158541802

Characteristics of first-year students in Canadian medical schools.

2002· article· en· W2158541802 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Irfan A. Dhalla, Jeff Kwong, David L. Streiner, Ralph E. Baddour, Andrea Waddell, Ian L. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Education and Admissions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of British ColumbiaOntario Medical AssociationCanadian Medical AssociationMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityAlberta Medical AssociationUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusDisadvantagedCensusEthnic groupDemographyPopulationGraduation (instrument)Proxy (statistics)MedicineImmigrationFamily medicinePsychologyGeographySociologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The demographic and socioeconomic profile of medical school classes has implications for where people choose to practise and whether they choose to treat certain disadvantaged groups. We aimed to describe the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of first-year Canadian medical students and compare them with those of the Canadian population to determine whether there are groups that are over- or underrepresented. Furthermore, we wished to test the hypothesis that medical students often come from privileged socioeconomic backgrounds. METHODS: As part of a larger Internet survey of all students at Canadian medical schools outside Quebec, conducted in January and February 2001, first-year students were asked to give their age, sex, self-described ethnic background using Statistics Canada census descriptions and educational background. Postal code at the time of high school graduation served as a proxy for socioeconomic status. Respondents were also asked for estimates of parental income and education. Responses were compared when possible with Canadian age-group-matched data from the 1996 census. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 981 (80.2%) of 1223 first-year medical students. There were similar numbers of male and female students (51.1% female), with 65% aged 20 to 24 years. Although there were more people from visible minorities in medical school than in the Canadian population (32.4% v. 20.0%) (p < 0.001), certain minority groups (black and Aboriginal) were underrepresented, and others (Chinese, South Asian) were overrepresented. Medical students were less likely than the Canadian population to come from rural areas (10.8% v. 22.4%) (p< 0.001) and were more likely to have higher socioeconomic status, as measured by parents' education (39.0% of fathers and 19.4% of mothers had a master's or doctoral degree, as compared with 6.6% and 3.0% respectively of the Canadian population aged 45 to 64), parents' occupation (69.3% of fathers and 48.7% of mothers were professionals or high-level managers, as compared with 12.0% of Canadians) and household income (15.4% of parents had annual household incomes less than $40,000, as compared with 39.7% of Canadian households; 17.0% of parents had household incomes greater than $160,000, as compared with 2.7% of Canadian households with an income greater than $150,000). Almost half (43.5%) of the medical students came from neighbourhoods with median family incomes in the top quintile (p < 0.001). A total of 57.7% of the respondents had completed 4 years or less of postsecondary studies before medical school, and 29.3% had completed 6 or more years. The parents of the medical students tended to have occupations with higher social standing than did working adult Canadians; a total of 15.6% of the respondents had a physician parent. INTERPRETATION: Canadian medical students differ significantly from the general population, particularly with regard to ethnic background and socioeconomic status.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations158
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMedical Education and AdmissionsFrench-language works237,207