Canadian Orthopaedic Residents Perception of Their Needs in Elbow Surgery Teaching
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of this paper is to guide training program and review course curriculum planning in elbow disorders. To this end, a nationwide email survey was administered to residents’ in orthopaedic surgery training programs.Material and Methods: The survey had 12 items that examined learning needs in several domains: assessment of acute and chronic elbow disorders, treatment of elbow disorders and the perceived effectiveness of various practical skills simulation sessions. A rank order list of learning needs was created. Results: Eighty-eight of 351 residents completed the survey (25%). Ninety percent of respondents thought that a one-day course would be helpful. The majority of residents felt comfortable evaluating acute traumatic elbow disorders. Their level of comfort was lower in treatment of elective disorders, with only 4% of residents comfortable managing posterior interosseous nerve and 5% comfortable managing chronic elbow instability. Only 24% of residents were comfortable treating terrible triad injuries.Conclusions: Residents reported a need for additional education in elbow surgery; especially for elective disorders. Educational needs were clustered in several areas including surgical approaches, ligament repair, and surgical management of fracture dislocations.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it