Shifting into third gear: current options and controversies in third-year postgraduate family medicine programs in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize current options for postgraduate third-year programs in family medicine in Canada and compile current controversies about the expanding number of programs available and the trend toward subspecialization in family medicine. DESIGN: A literature search was conducted by the Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region Library research staff for Canadian family medicine fellowships and residency programs using MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from the beginning of 2005 to September 1, 2011. All available websites for programs offering third-year options were reviewed. SETTING: Canadian family medicine residency programs. METHODS: A list of current third-year residency programs was generated from the Canadian Post-MD Education Registry. In addition, the current Canadian Resident Matching Service website was reviewed, along with every program-specific website, for current third-year programs offered. MAIN FINDINGS: More than 30 different options for third-year residency programs are available, including a number of community-influenced and resident-directed enhanced-skills programs. In 2010 to 2011 there were 237 postgraduate third-year family medicine residents compared with 128 in 2010 to 2011, an increase of 109 positions. CONCLUSION: Controversies over the benefits to the patient population, the practice patterns of third-year residency graduates, and the influence of a subspecialty trend against a stated goal of comprehensive family medicine continue to exist, while the number of available third-year residency options continues to expand.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".