MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162689824 · doi:10.5539/hes.v4n3p1

Medical Colleges in Saudi Arabia: Can We Predict Graduate Numbers?

2014· article· en· W2162689824 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alaa Althubaiti, Mohammad A Alkhazim

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic shortageMedical educationPopulationHigher educationGraduate medical educationGraduate studentsMedicineFamily medicinePsychologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthGovernment (linguistics)Law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The shortage of Physicians is a major problem in many countries. Medical colleges are often encouraged to increase the graduate numbers. In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Saudi physicians form only 37.89% of the physician manpower. The remainder of the physicians are expatriates. It was recently estimated that the Kingdom would need 29,128 physicians by the year 2014 in order to maintain the same physicians-to-population ratio, i.e., 2.7 per 100,000. To solve the problem, the higher education institutions invested in medical education and increased their number of college graduates. However, there are many questions about whether this strategy will proof successful in covering the shortage or whether this will lead to problems, for example an excess in the number of physicians. These can only be answered if future graduate numbers are estimated and kept under control. In this study, common data mining techniques were reviewed and applied to the output of Saudi medical colleges over the past years. These techniques can be used to predict graduate numbers. The results show the importance of developing a national student information center to fix the data collection problems described in this paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207