Bibliographic record
Abstract
Doctors who move abroad encounter increasing difficulties with medical registration that seem to have less to do with protecting the public or maintaining standards, and more to do with political expediency or managing doctor numbers. If there was ever an area that cried out for evidence based practice, this is it. > Do the residents of Yellowknife deserve a worse service than those of Toronto? What would you consider if you were appointing a doctor who was trained overseas? The most obvious criterion would be fluency in the local language. Doctors need to communicate easily and sensitively with their patients. While doctors trained in the European Economic Area (EEA) have the right to medical registration anywhere in the EEA, English speaking doctors from Australia, New Zealand, and North America have to sit an English test. In Canada, individuals can sit the examination of the Medical Council of Canada in either English or French. Once …
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 | 0.055 | 0.261 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.026 |
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".