Evaluating the impact of a resident research program in general surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Programs of resident research have been found to improve research productivity. However, evidence of the success of these programs is lacking in a Canadian context. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the introduction of a formal program of resident research at a single Canadian academic centre.Methods: Resident research activities were tracked over a 10-year period (Resident Research Day (RRD) presentations, abstract presentations, published articles). Activities were divided into pre (2002-2007) and post (2007-2012) resident research program implementation time frames. Differences in research productivity were compared between time frames. Surveys of resident attitudes towards research were administered prior to the program’s implementation in 2007, and following introduction of the resident research program in 2009 and 2015.Results: Overall, research productivity (abstracts, publications, and RRD presentations) increased between pre and post resident research program time periods, with a statistically significant increase in mean number of published abstracts. Resident attitudes towards research changed somewhat over time, with fewer residents supporting mandatory research in recent years.Conclusion: Implementation of a resident program of research resulted in a significant increase in research productivity. The setting of clear, modifiable, and achievable goals, as well as providing tools for research success, have contributed to the success of this program.
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 | 0.025 | 0.676 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".