Competencies and Curriculum for Resident’s Career Planning: Review and Suggestions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Choosing a career path after residency graduation is an essential development task for a lifelong career as a doctor. Therefore, the career competencies and curriculum suitable for Korean medical residents were proposed based on doctor’s competencies and research article.
 Methods We reviewed Korean and English literature, such as research papers and newspapers, related to career education for the residents. Also, we searched the website of graduate medical education(GME) institutions for residents in different countries. Then, we reviewed doctor’s competencies related to career development from GME institutions in US, Canada, UK, EU, and Korea including ACGME. Review on current literatures was conducted focusing on external and internal factors influencing residents’ career decision making, and effective career development programs. Lastly, we proposed 4-level common career competencies, and career development program for residents in each level.
 Results Many GME institutions for residents established competencies about the resident’s career development and various roles as doctors. Many foreign institutions and provided career information through their website and career education programs to meet the needs of individual residents and the health care system. Based on the literature review, we suggested the generic career competencies of Korean residents in 4 stages and the career development curriculum linked to each competency stage.
 Conclusions It is necessary to initiate a systemic career education program for Korean residents to ensure individual residents’ well-being and the stable supply of doctors in the national health care system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".