Research projects in the Surgeon-Scientist and Clinician-Investigator programs at the University of Toronto (1987-2016): a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physicians have traditionally been at the forefront of medical research, bringing clinical questions to the laboratory and returning with ideas for treatment. However, we have anecdotally observed a decline in the popularity of basic science research among trainees. We hypothesized that fewer resident physicians have been pursuing basic science research training over time. METHODS: We examined records from residents in the Surgeon-Scientist and Clinician-Investigator programs at the University of Toronto (1987-2016). Research by residents was categorized independently by 2 raters as basic science, clinical epidemiology or education-related based on the title of the project, the name of the supervisor and Pubmed searches. The study population was divided into quintiles of time, and the proportion pursuing basic science training in each quintile was calculated. RESULTS: = 0.005). INTERPRETATION: Significantly fewer residents in the Surgeon-Scientist and Clinician-Investigator Programs at the University of Toronto are pursuing training in the basic sciences as compared with previous years.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".