Subspecialty Selection and Fellowship Training Satisfaction among American and Canadian Geriatric Psychiatry Fellows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Geriatric Psychiatry Fellowship Subspecialty survey aimed to identify key motivating factors associated with choosing geriatric psychiatry as a career, and to assess train-ing satisfaction among geriatric psychiatry fellows/residents in Canada and the United States. American and Canadian geriatric psychiatry program directors were asked to distribute an online survey to their fellows. Descriptive statistics for quantitative items and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to assess for differences by country of training. Thirty-one geriatric psychiatry fellows completed the survey. The most important motivating factors for pursuing a career in geriat-ric psychiatry were found to be “working with patients and families”, “working in an interdisciplinary environment”, and “intellectual stimulation”. Fellows’ overall training satisfac-tion was high, with American fellows more satisfied than Canadian residents (p = .047) on average, especially with regard to biomedical aspects of training (p = .01).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".