MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Medical Workforce Policy-Making in Canada, 1993???2003: Reconnecting the Disconnected

2006· article· en· W2074274188 on OpenAlexaffabout
W. Dale Dauphinée, Lynda Buske

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsMedical Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceProductivityWorkforce planningPhysician supplyEconomic shortageBusinessNormativeMedicinePublic relationsPolitical scienceHealth careEconomic growthEconomicsGovernment (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors set out to review Canadian medical workforce policies for 1993 to 2003 and assess if data existed in the 1990s that could have reversed the policy decision to curtail the supply of physicians from Canada's medical schools just as Canada was about to experience a developing shortage. The authors reviewed existing descriptive data sources regarding Canadian physician workforce size and activity from 1986 to 2003, including the Canadian Medical Association workforce database. The review indicated that a significant loss of physicians to retirement was imminent. Physician workforce productivity had started to fall by the early 1990s. Emigration to the United States had risen above traditional levels in the early 1990s and remained higher into the late 1990s. Despite these existing findings, an integrated adjustment to physician workforce policies taken in 1993-94 only occurred after 1999. The authors recommend that policy makers and managers must monitor the numbers from existing sources. To optimize these sources, planned data tracking and linkages are essential. The period in question demonstrated major disconnects in coordinating implementation, wherein subject experts monitoring data trends were not adequately utilized by policy makers. Finally, in complex systems with regional differences, policy decisions based on normative data are insufficient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.390 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207