MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410011001 · doi:10.1111/medu.15714

Caffeinate a resident: Brewing career connections

2025· article· en· W4410011001 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Sarah Moussa, Nehal Islam, Angana Datta

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsBrewingMedical educationPsychologyMedicineFamily medicineFood scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mentoring relationships aimed at medical students can enhance educational satisfaction and support career development.1 Most interactions with postgraduate medical education (PGME) colleagues are limited to senior clerkship years, leaving pre-clinical students with minimal mentorship opportunities early on. This reality is often present in other health care fields where clinical practicums are integrated into the later years of training. This early gap in mentorship may limit guidance early on. We launched the Caffeinate a Resident programme in 2018 as part of McGill University's Medical Student Society, pairing medical students with residents in their preferred specialties through informal coffee or tea meetings, helping facilitate mentorship opportunities between colleagues in undergraduate medical education (UGME) and PGME. Students rank their specialty preferences and are matched with volunteering residents. Since its inception, the programme has connected a total of 776 students with 729 residents. Each year, an average of 28 PGME programmes participate (SD: 5.8). The University of British Columbia Medical Undergraduate Society has since implemented a similar programme. Caffeinate a Resident distinguishes itself by providing early informal and relaxed mentorship between trainees following similar footsteps. Since 2018, we have streamlined the program with no-cost automation via free educational institutional licences (Power Automate, Microsoft Forms, Excel; Microsoft Corporation, USA), requiring about 10 hours to automate and operate annually from two dedicated volunteers. Beverages are independently arranged and purchased by the students and residents. As a result, the programme has been designed to operate at zero cost. The program follows a five-step process: stakeholder engagement, participant online registration, match database creation, communication of pairings and post-program online survey evaluation. Since its inception in 2018, the Caffeinate a Resident programme has revealed four key takeaways as they relate to (1) efficiency and sustainability, (2) programme engagement, (3) adaptability and (4) organizational culture. First, we discovered that automation is valuable in educational innovations, minimizing human error and significantly reducing time and effort requirements. A programme that initially involved dozens of hours of commitment over weeks can now be completed in 1 week, ensuring less burden on the programme's student leaders. Second, we learned that to ensure student and resident engagement, the programme must ally itself with existing institutions, such as student and resident associations, programme directors and the UGME and PGME offices. When all stakeholders were involved early, we had a 1.5-fold increase in PGME programmes participating in 2023 (26 to 39 programmes). Third, we learned that such a programme can be adaptable to other training contexts outside our own, namely, at the University of British Columbia. This initiative has the potential to be adapted and successfully integrated into other allied health programmes. Lastly, we learned through informal feedback amongst our peers that implementing such mentorship dyads is an important step towards fostering a greater sense of belonging amongst the UGME and PGME through low-stakes and informal settings, an impact reflected by the sustained engagement and annual participation of both trainees and PGME programmes. Sarah Moussa: Conceptualization; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing; project administration; resources; visualization; supervision. Nehal Islam: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing; project administration; resources. Aurgho Datta: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing; project administration; resources. We thank past and present Ambassadors for Comprehensive Education (ACE) sub-committee of the McGill Medical Student Society and all McGill resident doctors who have participated in this programme since 2018. Special thanks to the Association of McGill Residents (ARM), the Postgraduate Medical Education Dean and McGill's programme directors for their invaluable support. None. Not applicable. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicManagement and Marketing EducationFrench-language works237,207