A Comparison of Canadian Pediatric Resident Career Plans in 1998 and 2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Studies of pediatric resident career plans and preferences help to forecast changes in the demographic profile and practice patterns of North American pediatricians, providing insights that can guide child health care and medical education policy making. With this study we aimed to compare 4 aspects of Canadian pediatric resident career plans in 1998 and 2006: (1) weekly work hours; (2) scope of practice; (3) professional activities; and (4) community size. METHODS: Canadian pediatric residents were invited to participate in a national cross-sectional survey to explore career plans and preferences in 1998 (mailing) and 2006 (on-line). RESULTS: Response rates were 69% in 1998 and 52% in 2006. In both survey years, the majority of respondents were female (69% and 73%, respectively). Overall, residents planned to work a similar number of weekly hours in both survey years (47.8 vs 48.8). Women planned to work significantly fewer hours than men; this gap was wider in 2006 than in 1998 (1998: 2.8 fewer hours; 2006: 7.8 fewer hours). After adjusted analysis, the association between proportion of time in primary care and study year became significant; however, time in consultant general or subspecialty pediatrics remained nonsignificantly changed. Residents planned to spend less time in clinical work in 2006 than 1998 (64.4% vs 58.1%), and more planned to work and reside in metropolitan areas (68% vs 78% of decided respondents). CONCLUSIONS: Between 1998 and 2006, there was no overall change in the number of hours that Canadian pediatric residents planned to work, but the gender gap widened because of an increase in planned weekly work hours among men. The results also suggest that new strategies may be needed to improve future pediatrician availability in small communities by addressing barriers to nonmetropolitan practice, especially for women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".