Moving Toward a Standardized National Family Medicine Subinternship Curriculum:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although the subinternship (sub-I) is considered integral in many medical schools' curricula, family medicine does not have standardized course recommendations. Given the variable nature of this clinical experience, this study investigated the potential role of a standardized sub-I curriculum in family medicine. METHODS: Questions about sub-Is were created and data were gathered and analyzed as part of the 2019 Council of Academic Family Medicine's (CAFM) Educational Research Alliance (CERA) survey of family medicine clerkship directors. The survey was distributed via email to 126 US and 16 Canadian recipients between June 19, 2019 and August 2, 2019 through the online program SurveyMonkey. RESULTS: A total of 101 (71.1%) of 142 clerkship directors responded to the survey. Most (84.2%) schools require sub-Is. There was a positive association between students matching into family medicine and having family medicine sub-Is at residency programs (P<.001). There was no relationship between higher family medicine match rates and the presence of family medicine sub-Is at nonresidency sites (P=.48) or having an advanced ambulatory rotation requirement (P=.16). CONCLUSIONS: A sub-I is a way to further expose students to family medicine, and increasing sub-I positions at residency programs may influence the number who pursue the specialty. Creation of a standardized sub-I curriculum presents an opportunity to enhance a critical educational experience in family medicine.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".