The Canadian Psychiatric Association Practice Profile Survey: I. Methods and General Sample Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the rationale, methodology, and general sample characteristics of the Canadian Psychiatric Association (CPA) practice profile survey, a national survey of psychiatrists and psychiatric practice. METHOD: Mail-in interviews were sent to all Canadian psychiatrists listed in their provincial registers and to all active CPA members (total = 3628). Respondents provided general information about their professional activities for one 24-hour day and detailed information for 1 randomly selected hour. Patient information--including sociodemographics, diagnostic profiles, functioning levels, risk of harm to self or others, and disposition--was elicited for 1 patient seen during the random hour as well as for the most seriously ill patient receiving clinical services that day. RESULTS: There was a 45.5% response rate. Questionnaires completed by nonpsychiatrists or with a large percentage of missing or incorrect data were eliminated (107 surveys), resulting in a final sample size of 1570. CPA members and those from Western Canada responded at a higher rate to the survey. The results suggest some cause for concern about future manpower shortages. Most psychiatrists practise eclectically, seeing patients across the life-span, and working in both community and institutional settings. The old and the young appear to be underserviced, compared with adults. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents an important step forward in evaluating the profile and activities of the profession.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".