The community paediatrician – A vanishing breed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Physician Resource Planning Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) has looked at the state of community paediatric manpower through the results of the 1999/2000 Paediatrician Resource Planning Survey (1). The results, simply put, are not pretty or encouraging. A number of demographic changes within the current community workforce of paediatricians will have a significant negative impact on the future health care of children and youth if planning and methods of health care delivery are not looked at now. The status quo will not suffice. The purpose of the present article is to highlight the current state of community paediatric manpower, guided by the survey results. Hopefully, this knowledge will lead to positive changes in the delivery of high quality care to all children and youth of Canada. Aging is a looming factor for the community paediatric workforce. The CPS national survey (1), to which 1683 of a possible 2315 paediatricians responded, demonstrated that the average age of a paediatrician is 47 years. The survey also revealed that, by the year 2010, approximately 40% of surveyed paediatricians are expected to retire. To put this whole issue into a more concrete picture, an example may be of benefit. We are aware of an urban community of 200,000, where three of four paediatricians currently on staff at the community hospital are in their seventh decade of life. What plans are there to replace them? Will three paediatricians appear out of thin air? If three paediatricians are found, they may merely have been ‘stolen’ from another community. The reality is that most communities are unsuccessful in their paediatric recruitment strategies and community hospitals will not offer paediatric expertise. Children, youth and their families will be forced to travel long distances to access a community hospital with paediatricians and to travel even further distances for a paediatric hospital.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".