Respirology Manpower in Canada ‐‐ A Report for the Canadian Thoracic Society Education Committee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A report on adult and pediatric respirology manpower in Canada was prepared from data supplied by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC), and from program directors (and other colleagues) at universities across Canada. The data support a significant deficiency of adult respirologists in Canada, which is estimated to be from 10%, based on a 10-year-old outdated RCPSC recommendation, to 20%, based on equalization with the 'best' province, to as high as 50%, based on long waiting lists, particularly for respiratory sleep problems, and estimates obtained from academic centres across Canada. Although there are less data available for pediatric respirology, a similar approach suggests a 50% to 100% shortfall in pediatric respirologists. Output from Canadian training programs in adult and pediatric respirology is not likely to meet this need. We recommend that steps be taken urgently to provide sufficient resources for training adult and pediatric respirologists, and to ensure that funding is provided for subspecialist positions in the community.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".