The Future of Postgraduate Medical Education in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Future of Medical Education in Canada Postgraduate (FMEC PG) Project was launched in 2010 by a consortium of four organizations: the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada, the Collège des Médecins du Québec, the College of Family Physicians of Canada, and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. The FMEC PG study set out to review the state of the Canadian postgraduate medical education (PGME) system and make recommendations for improvements and changes. The extensive process included literature reviews, commissioned papers, stakeholder interviews, international consultations, and dialogue with the public and learners. The resulting key findings and 10 recommendations, published in a report in 2012, represent the collective vision of the consortium partner organizations for PGME in Canada. Implementation of the recommendations began in 2013 and will continue beyond 2016.In this article, the authors describe the complex process of developing the recommendations, highlight several recommendations, consider implementation processes and issues, and share lessons learned to date. They reflect on the ways in which the transformation of a very complex and complicated PGME system has required many stakeholders to work together on multiple interventions simultaneously. Notwithstanding the challenges for the participating organizations, changes have been introduced and sustainability is being forged. Throughout this process, the consortium partners and other stakeholders have continued to address the social accountability role of all physicians with respect to the public they serve.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".