Commentary on: Resident Exposure to Aesthetic Surgical and Nonsurgical Procedures During Canadian Residency Program Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although aesthetic surgery is a core component of plastic surgery education and training, meaningful exposure to aesthetic surgery remains a challenge for most academic training programs in North America. Not surprisingly, the lack of exposure to aesthetic surgical procedures during training results in graduating residents with lower confidence in performing these procedures as independent surgeons,1,2 which could have an adverse impact on the future of our specialty. In this retrospective analysis of Canadian plastic surgery resident case logs between 2004 and 2014,3 the authors evaluated the level of exposure and confidence in performing aesthetic surgery procedures. Similar to what has been demonstrated in previous studies,1,2,4 the authors found that residents had the greatest exposure to breast and body contouring procedures such as breast augmentation, mastopexy, and abdominoplasty and the least exposure to facial aesthetic procedures such as rhinoplasty and facial rejuvenation....
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 | 0.002 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".