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
OBJECTIVES: The international migration of health care professionals has been recognized as a public health concern. A series of 'push' and 'pull' factors have been identified as driving forces for migration of doctors. The USA, UK, Canada and Australia are the main beneficiaries of medical migration, which has adverse consequences for health care systems in developing countries. Recently, a Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel was adopted by the World Health Assembly. In this paper, a summary of the most important recommendations of the Code is presented. In addition, the case of overseas trained psychiatrists in Australia is illustrated. These specialists complain of discriminatory practices due to the lack of recognition of their professional credentials. Research evidence from different countries confirms that international medical graduates face discriminatory obstacles to exercise their rights and practise their professions in developed countries. CONCLUSIONS: An international strategy is required to promote sustainable health care systems worldwide. Additional academic and scientific partnerships must be established between developed and developing nations in order to minimize discrepancies. There is an urgent need to review policies related to the recognition of medical credentials in host countries, including Australia. There are clear implications for psychiatry and psychiatrists.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it