Career Interests of Canadian Psychiatry Residents: What Makes Residents Choose a Research Career?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Training future clinician-researchers remains a challenge faced by Canadian psychiatry departments. Our objectives were to determine the prevalence of residents interested in pursuing research and other career options as part of their practice, and to identify the factors associated with interest in research. METHOD: Data from a national online survey of 207 Canadian psychiatry residents from a total of 853 (24.3% response rate) were examined. The main outcome was interest in research as part of residents' future psychiatrist practice. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify demographic and vocational variables associated with research interest. RESULTS: Interest in research decreases by 76% between the first and fifth year of psychiatry residency (OR 0.76 per year, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97). Training in a department with a residency research track did not correlate with increased research interest (χ2 = 0.007, df = 1, P = 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Exposing and engaging psychiatry residents in research as early as possible in residency training appears key to promoting future research interest. Psychiatry residency programs and research tracks could consider emphasizing research training initiatives and protected research time early in residency.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".