Comparison of the number of supervisors on medical student satisfaction during a child and adolescent psychiatry rotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditionally, third-year medical students are assigned to one supervisor during their 1-week rotation in child and adolescent psychiatry. However, the majority of supervisory staff in the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry opted to switch the supervision schedule to one in which some medical students are assigned to two primary supervisors. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine if students assigned to two primary supervisors had greater rotation satisfaction compared with students assigned to one primary supervisor during a 1-week clerkship rotation in child and adolescent psychiatry. METHODS: A satisfaction questionnaire was sent to 110 third-year medical students who completed their child and adolescent clerkship rotation. Based on the responses, students were divided into groups depending on their number of supervisors. Questionnaire responses were compared between the groups using independent t-tests. RESULTS: When students who had one primary supervisor were compared to students who had two primary supervisors, the lone item showing a statistically significant difference was regarding improvement of assessment reports/progress notes. CONCLUSION: The number of supervisors does not significantly affect the satisfaction of students during a 1-week clerkship rotation in child and adolescent psychiatry. Other factors are important in rotation satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".