Study habits of Canadian urology residents: Implications for development of a competence by design curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the study habits of Canadian urology residents throughout their residency training. METHODS: A survey was administered to all final-year Canadian urology residents over a two-year period. Sixty-seven respondents answered a survey consisting of 54 questions scored on a 10-point Likert score. The survey addressed study habits throughout training, motivations for studying, and preferred resources used. RESULTS: Dedication to studying was directly correlated with proximity to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) exam. Ninety-six percent of residents reported studying over 10 hours per week during their chief year compared to 0% during their junior year. As residents progressed in their training, preparation for the Royal College exam became the greatest motivator for studying. There was considerable variability in study methods and study resources used throughout training. In their chief year, residents found such resources as the textbook Campbell-Walsh, AUA updates, CUA and AUA guidelines, and the study notes of former trainees to be valuable for their preparation. Teaching rounds, journal clubs, and reading current urological literature were found to be les helpful. Forty-six percent of all residents surveyed indicated that they would prefer writing their RCPSC exam one year earlier than the current timing. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into study habits of Canadian urology residents. This data may be helpful in shaping the future of urology training programs and examinations within Canada and elsewhere.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".