Orthopaedic Surgery Residents Perspectives on the Roles and Tasks Effective to Becoming a Competent Physician: A Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, residents’ views on which roles and tasks are effective to becoming a competent physician is not yet part of the research discourse. Ensuring that competency-based curriculum (CBC) objectives are aligned with competencies and evaluation methods is critical to build a curriculum that will produce competent physicians. \nThis research reports on the residents' views of the current Orthopaedic Surgery curriculum (UofT) which is solely competency-based. The residents' views were explored about which CanMEDS Roles and Entrustable Professional Activities (EPA’s) would be important to develop for them to become competent physicians. \n\tThis study employed a mixed methodology. The individual interviews were from CBC orthopaedic surgery residents and the survey respondents were orthopaedic surgery regular time-based stream and competency-based stream residents. \n\tThis research provides a better understanding of the resident experience so that educational practice and residency education can influence decisions around the curriculum design in postgraduate competency-based medical education programs.
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 | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".