The training paths and practice patterns of Canadian paediatric residency graduates, 2004–2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Paediatric Chairs of Canada have been proactive in workforce planning, anticipating paediatric job opportunities in academic centres. To complement this, it is important to characterize the practice profiles of paediatricians exiting training, including those working outside of tertiary care centres. OBJECTIVE: To describe the training paths and the practice patterns of Canadian paediatric residency graduates. METHODS: A survey was completed in 2010 to 2011 by Canadian program directors regarding residents completing core paediatrics training between 2004 and 2010. Data collection included training path after completing core paediatrics training and practice type after graduation. RESULTS: Of 699 residents completing their core training in paediatrics, training path data were available for 685 (98%). Overall, 430 (63%) residents completed subspecialty training while 255 (37%) completed general paediatrics training only. There was a significant increase in subspecialty training, from 59% in earlier graduates (2004 to 2007) to 67% in later graduates (2008 to 2010) (P=0.037). Practice pattern data after completion of training were available for 245 general paediatricians and 205 subspecialists. Sixty-nine percent of general paediatricians were community based while 85% of subspecialists were hospital based in tertiary or quaternary centres. Of all residents currently in practice, only 36 (8%) were working in rural, remote or underserviced areas. CONCLUSIONS: Almost two-thirds of recent Canadian paediatric graduates pursued subspecialty training. There was a significant increase in the frequency of subspecialty training among later-year graduates. Few graduates are practicing in rural or underserviced areas. Further studies are needed to determine whether these trends continue and their impact on the future paediatric workforce in Canada.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".