Perceptions of Canadian radiology residents regarding competence by design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study sought to evaluate the perceptions of Canadian Radiology residents on Competence by Design (CBD) and to identify areas in which further information and guidance is required.Methods: Radiology residents at five Western Canadian Radiology programs were eligible to participate in this online survey. The survey contained an assortment of question formats, including 5-point Likert-scale responses, multiple-choice questions, and free-text response. The questions assessed understanding of resident perspectives on feedback and coaching, learning and gaps in knowledge, and quality of training and preparedness within the CBD model.Results: Twenty-one residents from each of the five radiology residency programs and across each year of training participated in the survey. The majority of residents reported they disagreed (43%) or strongly disagreed (19%) that the CBD model will be more beneficial compared to the traditional training model. 90% reported their overall perspective of CBD as indifferent or negative. Entrustable professional activities (EPAs), milestones and promotions decisions and committee review were the top 3 areas residents required further information on. Residents identified timely and direct feedback as a positive aspect of CBD but expressed concern over time management within the new curriculum.Conclusion: This study identified specific areas of concern that may contribute to the overall negative or indifferent perception towards CBD by residents. Addressing resident concerns and gaps in knowledge during the early stages of CBD implementation may encourage long-term engagement and provide an opportunity to address the overall negative or indifferent perception of CBD.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".