Research Experience in Psychiatry Residency Programs across Canada: Current Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the current status of research experience in psychiatry residency programs across Canada. METHOD: Coordinators of Psychiatric Education (COPE) resident representatives from all 17 psychiatry residency programs in Canada were asked to complete a survey regarding research training requirements in their programs. RESULTS: Among the 17 COPE representatives, 15 completed the survey, representing 88% of the Canadian medical schools that have a psychiatry residency program. Among the 15 programs, 11 (73%) require residents to conduct a scholarly activity to complete residency. Some of these programs incorporated such a requirement in the past 5 years. Ten respondents (67%) reported availability of official policy and (or) guidelines on resident research requirements. Among the 11 programs that have a research requirement, 10 (91%) require residents to complete 1 scholarly activity; 1 requires completion of 2 scholarly activities. Eight (53%) residency programs reported having a separate research track. All of the programs have a research coordinator and 14 (93%) programs provide protected time to residents for conducting research. The 3 most common types of scholarly activities that qualify for the mandatory research requirement are a full independent project (10 programs), a quality improvement project (8 programs), and assisting in a faculty project (8 programs). Six programs expect their residents to present their final work in a departmental forum. None of the residency programs require publication of residents' final work. CONCLUSIONS: The current status of the research experience during psychiatry residency in Canada is encouraging but there is heterogeneity across the programs.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".