Perceptions d'ex-résidents en médecine familiale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To explore former residents’ perceptions of their experience of direct supervision. DESIGN Qualitative study using in-depth semistructured interviews. SETTING Family practice unit (FPU) at Hopital Laval in Quebec city, Que. PARTICIPANTS Twelve physicians who had been practising for 2 to 5 years and who did their family medicine residency in the FPU at Hopital Laval. METHOD Twelve inter views lasting 1 to 2 hours conducted by someone with no connection to the teaching centre. Inter views were taped and transcribed in full. Results were analyzed using L’Ecuyer’s developmental method. MAIN FINDINGS The former residents thought direct supervision had helped them in relationships with patients and in getting to know themselves, and was still doing them good several years later. It was also a difficult and disturbing experience; it created performance anxiety, forcing residents into self-examination and allowing others to see them as they really are. Three things made the direct supervision process easier: a preparatory activity, a focus on learning rather than evaluation, and their supervisors’ ability to adapt to their learning styles. CONCLUSION The former residents appreciated direct super vision; in spite of the difficulties, it was worthwhile. This conclusion will encourage teachers to continue to be involved in direct supervision.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".