Practice eligible route for certification in geriatric psychiatry: why some Canadian psychiatrists are disinterested in writing the RCPSC subspeciality examination?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geriatric psychiatry was officially recognized as a subspecialty by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) in 2009, with the first RCPSC exam written in 2013 (Andrew and Shea, 2010). The unique mental health needs of Canadians' seniors requires geriatric psychiatrists trained to address them (Herrmann, 2004), but current rates of recruitment in informal fellowship programs have been inadequate (Bragg et al., 2012). One hope of subspeciality recognition was to increase recruitment in Canada, but there have been some challenges in accrediting psychiatrists already caring for older adults. Many currently practicing geriatric psychiatrists have elected to take the Royal College examination, with >120 graduates in the first year, 2013, but others have been more ambivalent. In this letter, we perform a preliminary exploration of the prevalence and correlates of disinterest in completing the RCPSC geriatric psychiatry examination.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".