A brief report of aspiring medical student perceptions and behaviours concerning research experiences for selection into Canadian medical schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Aspiring medical students behave based on their perception of what is valued in the selection process. While research experience is not explicitly considered in most Canadian admissions policies, it is commonly held as valuable within aspiring medical student communities. The purpose of this study is to describe the perceptions and behaviours of aspiring medical students with respect to gaining research experience in support of their medical school applications. Methods: We surveyed prospective applicants of Canadian medical schools between August 2021 and November 2021, then compiled descriptive statistics pertaining to their perceptions and behaviours. Results: Respondents affirmed the belief that research experience is valued in medical school admissions processes. They reported spending approximately 13 hours per week engaged in research, which usually did not yield publication or presentation recognition. Conclusion: Aspiring medical students invest substantial time and energy in research experiences to benefit their applications. There is room for medical schools to be more transparent about the value of research experience in their admissions processes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.225 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.117 | 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".