CANADIAN PAEDIATRIC RESIDENT KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF THEIR NATIONAL PAEDIATRIC PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) is the national paediatric professional organization representing over 3000 child and youth health care providers. There are currently 847 resident members of the CPS (including subspecialty fellows) in 2016. Residents are valued members of the CPS, and their engagement in the organization is a priority of the CPS. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives of this study were to identify: 1. Resident knowledge of the CPS 2. Resident needs from the CPS 3. Further opportunities for engagement of residents within the CPS DESIGN/METHODS: A survey was developed by the principal authors (AR-L,RG-P,RS). The survey consisted of 23 questions with either closed-ended or free text responses. The survey was distributed, in English and French, via email link to 793 Canadian paediatric residents at every postgraduate training site in June 2016. All residents with an email address in the CPS membership database were included. Survey information was obtained through the use of an online electronic tool (Survey Monkey). All responses remained confidential, and were collated by the three authors (AR-L,RG-P,RS). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 132/793 (17%). The majority of respondents (80.3%) were female. There was good representation across the provinces and from all levels of postgraduate training. Nearly all (96.2%) self-identified as CPS members. A minority (18/116; 15.5%) were current or past CPS representatives. Three quarters of respondents (73/101) felt that the role of the CPS for residents was educational, followed by roles in providing networking (29.7%) and advocacy (27.7%) opportunities. CPS resources are frequently used by residents; all respondents used its statements and practice points. Half of residents (58/115) have attended the CPS Annual Conference during their residency. Many respondents (33/116; 28.4%) have submitted an abstract to the CPS Annual Conference, while a smaller number have applied for a CPS advocacy grant (8.6%) or a CPS elective grant (5.2%). Most respondents were aware of National Residents’ Advocacy Week (71.6%) and the Residents’ Section Facebook group (44%), but less were aware of the resources on starting a community practice (13.8%) and the national locum listings (32%). Residents want the CPS to provide more educational resources (49.1%), specifically in the area of preparation for the paediatrics licensing exam (22.0%), as well as to provide career counselling (22.0%) through provision of job postings, specialty projections, and mentorship. Half of responding residents would like to be more involved in the CPS. CONCLUSION: Residents see the role of the CPS for residents as primarily educational, and CPS educational resources are well used by residents. Residents see the CPS assisting with their career decision-making by providing career counselling, job opportunities and a community for networking. A significant number of residents would like to be more involved in the CPS.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".