MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2401603317

Training and rural physicians.

2005· letter· en· W2401603317 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Denton

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationMedical schoolDebtClass (philosophy)MedicinePsychologyFamily medicineBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I have just read Dr Roger Strasser’s article1 on training rural physicians. He suggests beginning by aiming our attention at rural high school students and then continuing to support and encourage these students during their undergraduate years. I then read Cal Gutkin’s article2 on a common first year of postgraduate training (PGY-1) and the Wilson and Cox reports3,4 suggesting that there should be three PGY-1 streams: one for family medicine residents, one for specialists, and one for those who have not yet decided. I then read the letters to the editor5-12 about extending residency to include a third year—be it an extra year of family practice or a year to focus on a speciality, such as emergency medicine, which has historically caused residents to practise in that area of interest, rather than in family medicine. Now putting these thoughts all together, should we not be looking at the undergraduate years? In the past, Canada had a 2-year premedical program. Returning to this system would capitalize on Dr Strasser’s suggestion and allow for more help to rural students. If all medical students were in the same undergraduate program, rural students could then receive the extra attention that Dr Strasser considers necessary. Students currently complain that MD really means “mega debt,” and adding years of study compounds this, as some of the letters to the editor argued. Many medical schools now require a 4-year undergraduate degree before admission to medical school. McMaster’s first class of medical students essentially consisted of PhD students, the second class, Master’s students, and the third and subsequent classes, students with 3-year undergraduate degrees. This implies that less is equally good. If we went back to a 2-year premedical program, or even if we required a 3-year undergraduate degree, then adding a PGY-3 requirement would not be the hardship that many students currently fear. If we went back to a 2-year premedical program, then attention and help could be given to rural students, and these students could be encouraged to practise family medicine.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.014

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicGlobal Health Workforce Issues→French-language works237,207→