Residency applicants' perspectives on family medicine residency training length.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Future of Family Medicine report advocated experimentation with 4-year residency training models. This study examines residency applicants' opinions about extending the length of residency training and seeks to determine which features of an extended program would be most desirable to applicants. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, descriptive, self-administered survey of residency applicant interviewees at Oregon's three family medicine residency training programs in 2004-2005. The survey included questions about demographics, factors influencing specialty choice, desirability of longer training programs, and desirability of certain types of additional training. RESULTS: A total of 155 surveys were returned, for an 89.1% response rate. Only 6% of respondents indicated that length of training was "very important" to their specialty choice; 85.0% indicated a preference for a 4-year program with or without specific experiences; 77.2% indicated that extended training would either increase their likelihood of choosing family medicine or would not affect their decision; and 79.3% indicated that a 4-year residency would not make them less likely to choose family medicine over other primary care specialties. Pregnancy care, trauma care, adolescent/child health, and procedural skills were the most commonly desired areas for additional training. CONCLUSIONS: Lengthening training to 4 years would have a neutral or positive effect on applicants' interest in family medicine training in Oregon.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".