Otolaryngology training during paediatric residency: A survey of paediatricians in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is a significant overlap between paediatrics and otolaryngology relating to clinical practice of the two specialties. A lack of cross-training has been identified in previous studies, but the specifics have not been established. The present study was directed at paediatricians in Canada, and examined the need for mandatory otolaryngology training during paediatric residency. METHODS: Surveys were mailed out to paediatricians in Canada who had completed residency within the past 20 years. Guidelines for the mailing procedure were regulated by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. A cover letter, survey form and return envelope were included in the package. Data were tabulated and described using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Six hundred sixty-six surveys were mailed; the response rate was 48%. Seventy-three per cent of paediatricians indicated that otolaryngology training should be mandatory during paediatric residency. Seventy-nine per cent of general paediatricians and 68% of subspecialists also believed that it should be mandatory training. Seventy per cent of paediatricians indicated that clinical experience was the best format for otolaryngology training, the other options being lectures or rotations. Postgraduate year 2 was the most preferred year for this training. For paediatricians who indicated mandatory training, 45% indicated that it could not replace something else, 38% said that it could replace another experience and the remainder were undecided. The respondents provided helpful commentary. INTERPRETATION: The majority of surveyed paediatricians in Canada believe that otolaryngology training should be mandatory during paediatric residency. There was also a general consensus relating to the format (clinical experience) and the duration (two to four weeks) of the training.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".