28 IMPROVING EDUCATIONAL VALUE IN THE FOURTH YEAR OF PEDIATRIC RESIDENCY: Table 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Purpose</h3> Residency training programs recognize the need to prepare graduates for their chosen career path. Currently, the UBC program consists of a three-year core general pediatric curriculum, which is followed by a fourth general or subspecialty training year. Elective rotations are included. The goal of this study is to establish the 4th year curricular components and clinical experiences (mandatory and elective) that residents see as most stimulating and educationally worthwhile. <h3>Method</h3> A comprehensive questionnaire, developed by the Residency Training Committee, was mailed to all UBC Pediatric Residents. The survey asked residents to identify the components that they would see as most valid and attractive to them in a 4th year of General Pediatrics. In addition, using the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada CanMeds criteria, questions were also asked about residents9 self-perception of their competence as a pediatric health care professional. <h3>Results</h3> This study is ongoing. Our preliminary findings (14 survey responses, 39% response rate to date) indicate that pediatric residents ranked strategic elective experiences (77%), consultant experience and increasing clinical maturity (72%), and preparation for fellowship exams (71%) as the top three priorities of their fourth year of residency. Table shows mean and standard deviation for residents9 self-perception of their current level of ability for the 7 CanMeds competencies. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Our residents are providing enthusiastic feedback. The data give the training committee educationally valid content and direction for program planning. This process will ensure that the 4th year training opportunities provided will meet the overall needs of our adult learners, as well as enabling each of them to prepare for the specifics of their chosen career path in Pediatrics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".