The RCPSC Oral Examination: Patient Perceptions and Impact on Participating Psychiatric Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient perceptions and the impact of participating in the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) long case oral examination. METHOD: Immediately following the RCPSC exam, participating psychiatric patients completed a Participant Impact Questionnaire. We combined results for 2002 and 2003 from both the western and eastern sites. RESULTS: Overall, there was a 93% response rate (132/142): 98% (65/66) for the western site and 88% (67/76) for the eastern site. Of the respondents, 94% said they would participate in the RCPSC oral exam again, if required. Most (92%) either agreed or strongly agreed that the exam was well organized; 76% either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the exam was stressful; only 9% agreed that they participated to earn extra money; and 82% strongly disagreed that they felt pressured by their psychiatrist to participate. Patients' written reasons for participating included, but were not limited to, helping to train future psychiatrists. We briefly discuss aspects of the use of real patients vs standardized patients in the RCPSC oral exam. CONCLUSION: Patients who participated in the RCPSC long case oral exam generally found this experience very positive. The exam did not appear to have a negative impact on patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".