Factors Predicting Practice Location and Outreach Consultation among University of Toronto Psychiatry Graduates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the determinants of practice location and of outreach consultation of recently graduated psychiatrists. METHODS: We surveyed 153 psychiatrists who graduated from the University of Toronto Department of Psychiatry between January 1990 and June 2002 (response rate 51%), on the basis of a self-administered mail questionnaire. The survey assessed factors that influenced practice location and outreach consultation, such as demographics, links to practice communities, and outreach experiences, including rural or northern electives as a resident. RESULTS: Professional variables were rated as the most important factors in choosing a practice location. Variables such as age or sex were not significantly associated with location. Nine percent reported working in communities of less than 100,000, and only 1% practised in Northern Ontario. Eighteen percent practised in the same location where they were born or raised. Forty-four percent had rural or northern experience as a resident but almost exclusively in the form of short, fly-in consultation electives. Twenty-four percent indicated that they provide outreach consultation. Psychiatry residents who participated in outreach electives were 10 times as likely as those who did not participate to continue outreach as a consultant. CONCLUSION: Although early exposure to rural or northern medicine leads to significantly greater continued involvement in outreach activities after graduation, our findings suggest the need for more long-term, on-site residency training opportunities in rural and remote areas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".