One year in a canadian family medicine residency (analysis of the teaching, outcomes and outlooks for education in general practice in France)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce travail tire partie de l'expérience vécue d'un résidanat canadien pour l'enseignement de la médecine générale en France. L'Université de Montréal apporte un contexte d'apprentissage signifiant, une supervision systématique et organisée, avec un impact favorable sur le savoir et le savoir-faire des étudiants. Les contraintes inhérentes aux soins primaires et le manque de personnel gênent les approches centrées sur l'étudiant. " Soutien institutionnel spécifique " et " sensibilisation aux principes de la pédagogie " sont essentiels? On souligne le besoin d'organismes spéciaux pour : établir un référentiel de pratique professionnelle, développer la pédagogie et l'évaluation. L'entière participation de généralistes universitaires accrédités est importante. L'exemple canadien peut inspirer le futur internat de médecine générale. La formulation claire d'objectifs pédagogiques pertinents est essentielle. L'uniformisation nationale des cursus et de l'évaluation est souhaitable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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".