MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2414062459

Electives in obstetric/gynecology residencies. Evidence of flexibility.

2002· article· en· W2414062459 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jill S. Huppert, Paula J. Adams Hillard

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineFlexibility (engineering)Obstetrics and gynaecologyCross-sectional studyGynecologyPregnancyManagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the patterns of electives in obstetric and gynecology (OB/GYN) residencies. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of all 274 U.S. and Canadian residency directors assessed the type and number of electives offered by residency programs and correlated these with program characteristics. A separate survey evaluated resident satisfaction with electives at the University of Cincinnati (UC). RESULTS: Electives were offered by 53.8% of U.S. programs (95% CI: 45.2, 60.4), and 92% of electives were offered in the third year. The median length was four weeks, and surgical experience was the most common type of elective. A larger proportion of Canadian programs offered electives, which were of longer duration. The proportion of programs reporting electives did not vary with city size, program size or location. Among 29 UC residents, 62% arranged an optional elective, 92% were satisfied with the experience, and 5 residents (28%) reported that electives influenced their career choice. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of electives appears higher than listed in currently available directories, although lower than in other primary care residencies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicDiversity and Career in Medicine→French-language works237,207→