GPs with enhanced surgical skills: a questionable solution for remote surgical services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: The Canadian College of Family Physicians recently decided to recognize family physicians with enhanced surgical skills (ESS) and has proposed a 1-year curriculum of surgical training. The purpose of this initiative is to bring or enhance surgical services to remote and underserviced areas. We feel that this proposed curriculum is overly ambitious and unrealistic and that it is unlikely to produce surgeons, or a system, capable of delivering high-quality surgical services. The convergence of a new training curriculum for general surgeons, coupled with the current oversupply of surgeons, provide an alternate pathway to meet the needs of these communities. A long-term solution will also require alternate funding models, a sophisticated and coordinated national locum service and a national review of the population and infrastructure requirements necessary for both sustainable resident surgical services and surgical outreach services.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".