PAG as a Mandatory ObGyn Training Experience in Canada: A Needs Assessment Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to perform a needs assessment to determine if mandatory Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology (PAG) training experience in each Obstetrics and Gynecology (ObGyn) residency program in Canada is feasible. METHODS: This is a comparative descriptive design where the 16 ObGyn Residency Program Directors (PD) in Canada will undergo 20-minute phone interviews. The interviews will be recorded and will explore how PAG and Reproductive Endocrinology (RE) objectives are met in each program, PD’s awareness of PAG opportunities in North America and feasibility of a mandatory training experience. This project is REB approved. RESULTS: Thirteen program directors agreed to participate, and ten interviews have been completed thus far. There appears to be at least 1-2 PAG-trained ObGyn per institution with some form of mandatory training experience for residents in senior years. PD feel PAG training is important and should be mandatory; however, they report a lack resources to implement. PDs lack of knowledge of available PAG electives and fellowships offered in North America as well as numerous educational tools available to teach PAG. CONCLUSION: PAG training experiences should be mandatory in all programs to achieve the RCPSC PAG objectives. PAG providers are available in all Canadian training centers and efforts should be made to support these providers in delivering the educational PAG content to ObGyn residents to ensure competency in the care of young women and children. PD need to be educated on available PAG educational resources, resident electives and fellowship opportunities.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".