Implications of not matching to a first-choice discipline: a family medicine perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family medicine is often selected as an alternate career choice by medical students who do not match to their first choice discipline. Consequently, family medicine residency programs accept and train some residents who prepared for and intended a career in another specialty. The implications of this warrant investigation. METHODS: Graduates (2006-2011) of Albertan family medicine residency programs were surveyed to examine differences between physicians who indicated family medicine was their first choice discipline and those who indicated that it was not their first choice. Survey questions targeted practice location, preparedness for practice, perceptions of family medicine, lifestyle satisfaction, and well-being. Principal components analysis was used to examine the factor structure of our survey items and ANOVA and Chi square were used to compare mean scores and proportions, respectively. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 47.2% (307/651). Most (263) respondents reported that family medicine was their first choice discipline (yes-group); 42 respondents indicated that it was not (no-group) and two did not answer. The two groups were similar demographically. The no-group reported significantly lower mean scores on perceptions of family medicine. There were no significant differences between the two groups in their preparedness for practice and measures of lifestyle satisfaction and well-being. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of their perceptions of the discipline, the respondents who did not match to their first choice discipline found family medicine to be a viable career option.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".