Scholarly activity as a selection criterion in the Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS): A review of published criteria by internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Undergraduate medical students seek as much information as possible as to how residency programs select candidates. The Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) website is one of their primary sources of information. Students may be more competitive in the match if they know whether scholarly activity is used in the selection process by their preferred programs, as described on the CaRMS website. METHODS: For all 17 Canadian faculties of medicine, 2019 R1 entry internal medicine, family medicine and pediatrics program descriptions were reviewed on the CaRMS website looking for keywords related to scholarly activity. RESULTS: Forty-one percent of family medicine, 65% of internal medicine and 71% of pediatric programs explicitly stated having interest in applicants with scholarly experience. In Western Canada, 80% of internal medicine and 60% of pediatrics programs included scholarly activity in their CaRMS description of criteria considered in ranking applications. Similarly, in Ontario, 66% of internal medicine and 83% of pediatrics programs mentioned scholarly activity as a valuable quality. In Quebec 100% of family medicine and 50% of pediatrics programs include scholarly activity in their descriptions. Pediatrics and family medicine programs (100%) in Atlantic Canada mentioned scholarly activities but neither of the two Atlantic Canada internal medicine programs mentioned scholarly activities. CONCLUSION: Undergraduate medical students can use this project to prioritize extracurricular activities and scholarly work to be competitive for application to family medicine, internal medicine and pediatrics residency 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 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 | 0.064 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.049 | 0.064 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".