Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the current status of radiologist provision in Australia, and explores issues relating to its current adequacy, as well as analysing projections of supply and requirements, and their balancing. Data are drawn from several sources including the results of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists Workforce Survey 2000, and the report of the Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee Radiology Working Party 2001. The main conclusions to be drawn are that: (i) there is a current shortfall of radiologist supply in Australia; (ii) future requirements (taking all factors into consideration) are expected to grow at a greater rate than projected supply (based on the status quo); and (iii) supply of radiologists should therefore be increased. These conclusions are roughly in line with those from other countries, such as the UK, Canada and USA. Radiologists practising in Australia also appear to have relatively high productivity, including by some international comparisons. These findings are presented in the context of current issues in Australian medical imaging, including provider consolidation and corporatization, globalization and funding.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".