How do current paediatrics residency selection criteria correlate with residency performance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The selection process for potential residents needs to be reviewed regularly and assessed if effective in selecting the best-fit residents who can achieve academic and professional excellence. Objective measures must take precedence over subjective criteria to reduce selection bias while ensuring transparency and accountability. However, the predictors of an ideal resident and his/her performance during residency training have been a great challenge to identify as part of the selection process. The use of examination results from medical school examination, licensing examinations such as the United States Medical Licensing Examination,1,2,3 and structured interviews4 was reported to correlate positively with doctor’s performances. A Canadian study also reported that the presence of scholarly activity did not affect match outcome, though this is variable for different programmes.5 Competitive programmes like paediatrics have a vested interest in selecting the most suitable applicants who will excel as paediatric residents and emerge as holistic, high-performing paediatricians in their field.6
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".