The Canadian Plastic Surgery Workforce Survey: Interpretation and Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have monitored physician supply in Canada, and no studies have specifically examined the Canadian plastic surgery workforce. METHODS: In this study, data were gathered by three methods. A survey was distributed to all members of the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons in October of 2004. Opinions on the availability of plastic surgery services were solicited. A second survey that focused on demographics and workload was distributed in December of 2004. Finally, the locations of all Canadian trainees graduating between 1995 and 2005 were reviewed. RESULTS: The response rate to the first survey was 42 percent. Seventy-eight percent of respondents felt that there was a shortage of plastic surgeons in their community. The response rate to the second survey was 40 percent. Twenty-eight percent of respondents were within 5 years of retirement and 3.2 percent stated that they planned to emigrate by 2010. The mean waiting time for an elective consultation was 32 +/- 33 weeks. Review of all 179 plastic surgery graduates over the past 10 years revealed that 23 percent now practice outside of Canada. CONCLUSIONS: When these results are projected to the total workforce, they indicate that there will be a future shortage of plastic surgeons in Canada. To prevent a further deficit, there is a need to increase the number of plastic surgery trainees in Canada, to offer incentives for graduates to stay in Canada, and to possibly recruit more foreign-trained plastic surgeons to practice within Canada.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".