National survey of mentorship in Canadian general surgery residency programs: Where are we and what do we need?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefits of mentorship on residents are well established. The current state of mentorship in General Surgery (GS) residency programs in Canada is unknown. The objectives of this study were to obtain GS residents' and program directors' (PD) perspectives on resident mentorship. STUDY DESIGN: An electronic survey was developed and distributed to all 601 GS residents in Canada. All 17 PDs were invited for telephone interviews. RESULTS: A total of 179 of the 601 residents responded. Ninety-seven percent (n=173) felt mentorship was important. Only 67% (n=116) identified a mentor and only 53% (n=62) reported a mentorship program. Most who identified a mentor (n=87/110, 79%) were satisfied with the mentorship received. Significant variations in mentorship existed between demographic subgroups and mentorship program types. Overall, residents (n=121, 74%) favoured having a required mentorship program.A total of 11 out of 17 PDs participated in the telephone interviews. The majority of PDs (n=9, 82%) were satisfied with current resident mentorship but most acknowledged that barriers exist (n=8, 73%). CONCLUSION: GS programs in Canada should ensure they are providing equal opportunities for mentorship across demographic subgroups. Programs are encouraged to examine both their program's and their residents' needs as well as local barriers to improve mentorship.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".