The current landscape of urological undergraduate education in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Urological presentations are commonly seen in primary care and urologists are concerned that educational gaps exist in undergraduate curricula in Canadian medical schools. A pan-Canadian survey of undergraduate urology education directors (UUEDs) was used to determine the current status of undergraduate urology education in Canada. METHODS: In the fall of 2018, a survey was administered to all 17 UUEDs representing every Canadian medical school. The survey assessed multiple factors, including the timing and duration of urologist-led instruction, the perceived adequacy of urological content in the curriculum, and the level of preparedness of graduating students. RESULTS: The response rate was 100%. Variation in the duration (mean total instructional hours: 22.5±17.2 [5-75] hours) and timing of formal urological instruction was seen. The majority of schools covered core content areas, however, erectile dysfunction, urotrauma, and pediatric urology topics were under-represented. One school had a mandatory urology clerkship rotation (one week), while the other 16 schools offered a selective, with 24.3% of students completing this experience. The majority of UUEDs (64.7%) believed the curricular time devoted to urology was inadequate, 29.4% felt that their graduates were unprepared to diagnose and treat common urological problems, and 76.5% strongly agreed or agreed that a national urology curriculum would be useful. CONCLUSIONS: There was significant variability in the duration of instruction and delivery of urological topics in Canadian medical schools. There was a perceived need for more urological instruction by most UUEDs, who welcomed a more standardized national curriculum as a strategy to address this need.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".