The current utility and future use of the medical student performance record: A survey of perceptions across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The MSPR is a Canada wide tool that provides aggregate information on MD students' performance during training and used widely as part of PG admissions. This survey study elicits the perceptions of PG admissions stakeholders on the current use and future utility of the MSPR in Canada. METHODS: PG admissions stakeholders across the faculties of medicine were convenience sampled for a 15-question online survey in the fall of 2018. Participants were asked how and when the MSPR is incorporated into the admissions process and perceptions and recommendations for improvement. Data are summarized descriptively and thematically. RESULTS: Responses came from 164 participants across the 17 faculties of medicine. The MSPR was widely used (92%), most commonly in the file review process (52%) for professionalism issues. The majority of responses indicated that MSPRs were not fair for all MD students (60%) and required revision (74%) with greater emphasis required on transparency, professionalism, and narrative comments. DISCUSSION: The results indicate that though MSPRs are widely used in PG admissions their perceived value is limited to a few specific sources of information and to specific parts of the admissions process. There are significant concerns from PG stakeholders on the utility of MSPRs and future changes should align with the needs of these stakeholders while balancing the concerns of students and undergraduate programs.
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 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.016 | 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".