Fundamental trends within falling match rates: insights from the past decade of Canadian residency matching data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of unmatched Canadian Medical Graduates (CMGs) has risen dramatically over the last decade. To identify long-term solutions to this problem, an understanding of the factors contributing to these rising unmatched rates is critical. METHODS: Using match and electives data from 2009-2019, we employed machine learning algorithms to identify three clusters of disciplines with distinct trends in match and electives behaviours. We assessed the relationships between unmatched rates, competitiveness, rates of parallel planning, and program selection practices at a discipline level. RESULTS: Across Canada, growth in CMGs has outpaced growth in residency seats, narrowing the seat-to-applicant ratio. Yet not all disciplines have been affected equally: a subset of surgical disciplines experienced a consistent decline in residency seats over time. Applicants to these disciplines are also at disproportionate risk of becoming unmatched, and this is associated with lower rates of parallel planning as quantified through clinical electives and match applications. This, in turn, is associated with the program selection practices of these disciplines. CONCLUSION: Long-term solutions to the unmatched CMG crisis require more nuance than indiscriminately increasing residency seats and should consider cluster specific match ratios as well as regulations around clinical electives and program selection practices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".