Perspectives of Indigenous medical students on a postgraduate Indigenous admissions pathway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the perceptions of Indigenous medical students on postgraduate admissions through an Indigenous admissions pathway (IAP), and to determine what factors may influence Indigenous medical students' choice of residency training program. Methods: We distributed a survey to self-identified Indigenous students at settler Canadian medical schools. The survey questioned the students' acceptability of an IAP, and what factors would influence application through an IAP. Analysis included descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of open-ended questions. Results: Thirty-six participants responded to the survey. Location and proximity to family or support system were the most important factors in choosing a residency program. Participants identified mentorship from Indigenous physicians and community involvement as being important features of a residency program that has an IAP. Eighty-one percent of participants felt the availability of an IAP would influence their choice of residency program. Fear of judgement or stigma, concern about entrance requirements, and program logistics were identified as barriers to applying to residency through an IAP. All participants believed that an IAP would have a positive influence on the healthcare system more broadly. Conclusions: An IAP appears to be an acceptable residency application format to Indigenous students but cannot exist in isolation. It is important for programs to consider the needs and safety of Indigenous trainees within residency programs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".