Evaluation and Comparison of the Comprehensiveness of Canadian and American Ophthalmology Residency Program Websites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We descriptively and comparatively evaluated the comprehensiveness of Canadian and US-accredited ophthalmology residency program websites as of August 28, 2024. Using Canadian Resident Matching Service (<i>n</i> = 15) and US Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (<i>n</i> = 125), we assessed website content across seven criteria: recruitment, faculty, residents, education/research, teaching, benefits, and community. Two independent reviewers used a 40-point system, with Kruskal-Wallis and post-hoc pairwise tests for analysis by country and funding model. US programs more frequently had highly comprehensive websites than Canadian programs (US: 74.4%, Canada: 40%). Canadian programs mostly achieved moderate comprehensiveness (Canada: 60%, US: 22.4%). Larger program size and US origin were significantly linked to higher comprehensiveness scores (<i>p</i> < .01). Our findings suggest that US-based, larger programs offer more extensive online resources. We recommend standardized guidelines to improve residency program website transparency and accessibility for medical learners.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".