Highlights of the 2002 Canadian Neurological Society (CNS) Manpower Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian Neurological Society commissioned a manpower survey in 2002 to assess demographics, distribution, specialty interests, working conditions, job satisfaction and future plans of neurologists across the country. METHODS: A survey was mailed to all known Canadian neurologists (n = 694) on two separate occasions. Further encouragement by telephone contact was undertaken. The response rate was 54%. RESULTS: The mean age of neurologists who responded was 51 years, with 14% being women. Approximately 55% of neurologists were community-based. Seventy-six percent designated a sub-specialty interest. On average, neurologists worked 57 hours per week and the majority had significant "on-call" commitments. Job satisfaction was higher among academic neurologists when compared with community-based neurologists, and greater among men than women. A greater percentage of older neurologists were satisfied with their work than their younger colleagues. Significant attrition in the neurological work force is a major concern, since up to 20% of neurologists reported that they are likely to retire in the next five years and about 15% are likely to reduce their practice. CONCLUSIONS: This survey suggests that substantial concerns are facing Canadian neurology over the next five years. Major efforts to retain existing expertise and enhance residency training will be required to simply maintain the present quality of neurological care in 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".