Du projet professionnel d’internes de médecine générale angevins à leur exercice réel : 2012 à 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The installation of young general practitioners is determined by several factors, including their professional project. In 2012, a quantitative observational study examined the professional projects of general medicine residents in Angers. In 2019, the objective of this study was to highlight a continuity between professional projects and current exercise. METHOD: Quantitative declarative study by online form carried out from May to July 2019, about socio-demographic data, current exercise, and factors of evolution of the professional projects. The inclusion criteria were to have responded to the 2012 study and to have agreed to be contacted (N = 167). Construction of a change indicator (ISPP) based on a comparison of the mode of practice, the structure of practice and the type of patient envisaged, envisaged in 2012 and actual in 2019. RESULTS: The response rate was 76.6%. 48.4% worked exclusively in liberal practice, 31.3% were salaried, 11.7% had a mixed exercise. The professional plan envisaged during the internship (ISPP) was followed completely by 67.7% of interns and partially by 17.3%. The SASPAS influenced the evolution of the professional project (P = 0.026). The multiplication of liberal practice internships during residency favored subsequent liberal practice (P < 0.001). The main factors declared in the development of professional projects were training (77.3%) and family situation (53.1%). CONCLUSION: This cohort follow-up showed that more than two thirds of the residents followed their initial project. Identification and support of these individual projects during residency could be a way to promote their realization.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".