South African Clinical Psychology, Employment (In)Equity and the “Brain Drain”
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study investigated race, gender and the “brain drain” in the Midlands Hospital (Pietermaritzburg) intern clinical psychology training programme. During the 20-year period between 1981 and 2000 a total of 128 interns were accepted into the programme. Almost three-quarters of the interns were White, and the majority of the sample was unskilled in the predominant language spoken in the region. Approximately 60% of the interns trained were female. No significant increase in the intake of Black interns was observed during the post-apartheid period (i.e.1994 to 2000). However, a significant increase in female interns was noted during that period. At the time of writing this article, almost one-quarter of the interns were working outside South Africa, the majority in Europe. Considering the findings, it is imperative that the profession re-examines its goals in post-apartheid South Africa, and makes concerted efforts to develop the mechanism to attain these. In addition, the profession and government need to take very seriously the “brain drain” problem and jointly develop acceptable ways of alleviating it.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it