MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340163648 · doi:10.22374/cjgim.v8i1.98

McMaster University Internal Medicine International Health Elective: A Survey-Based Study to Understand Achievements and Lessons Learned

2013· article· en· W2340163648 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Andrew W. Duncan, Musa Waiswa MBChB MMed, Ally P.H. Prebtani BScPhm, Madeleine Verhovsek, Tim O’Shea

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineGlobal healthMedical educationElective surgeryResource (disambiguation)NursingPublic healthSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The McMaster Internal Medicine International Health Elective (IHE) has been placing senior medical residents (PGY-3) in an elective setting in a teaching hospital in Kampala, Uganda, for the past 7 years. This article discusses a study in which the authors electronically mailed a survey to alumni of this elective to evaluate important aspects of program participation from the residents’ point of view. The factors most commonly cited as being important in the decision to apply to the McMaster IHE were to gain experience practising medicine in a resource-limited setting and to gain exposure to diseases and conditions not commonly encountered in Canada. Most residents (61.5%) planned to have some involvement in global health prior to their elective, and 100% felt the elective experience made them more likely to take part in global health activities in the future. IHEs offer a unique opportunity for residents to explore global health. Residents participating in this survey found the McMaster Internal Medicine IHE to be a successful endeavour.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of General Internal MedicineSame topicGlobal Health and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207