Medical Training in Psychiatric Residency: The PGY-1 Experience, 2014 Update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been several changes to psychiatry residency training since the 2001 Canadian Psychiatric Association (CPA) Position Paper on the topic of medical training during the residency.1 Specifically, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) released a document regarding Specialty Training Requirements (STRs) first in 2007, then updated in 2009, with specific requirements for the postgraduate year one (PGY-1).2 According to the STR, this training year “must be a broadly based medical experience relevant to Psychiatry” [italics added].2, p 1 The content of PGY-1 continues to demonstrate some variability across the 17 Canadian university residency training programs, congruent with the continued flexibility in the content of the PGY-1 year within the RCPSC STR (see Table 1 for specific content). Table 1 Royal College Specialty Training Requirements2 As well, there continues to be an ongoing dialogue and debate in the literature regarding the medical competencies that should be expected of psychiatrists. As such, there is no clear consensus as to which medical experiences should be most relevant to psychiatry, and whether a more prescriptive approach to medical training than currently exists would be beneficial. Ever since the elimination of the rotating internship year in the early 1990s, there has been considerable varied opinion regarding which medical skills and knowledge are important and essential for the training of the generalist physician skill set required of all physicians, while at the same time ensuring that psychiatry trainees are adequately prepared for doing psychiatric work.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".