Inventory of Pediatric Neurology “Manpower” in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the demographics and workload characteristics of pediatric neurology in Canada. METHOD: A standardized survey questionnaire was mailed out to practicing pediatric neurologists in Canada in 2001. Variables examined were age, gender, hours on call, regular hours worked per week, type of practice and projected changes in practice over next five to ten years. Results were compared to the 1994 Pediatric Neurology Manpower Survey which had used the same survey instrument. RESULTS: Fifty-six (70%) pediatric neurologists practicing in Canada returned the survey. As was the case in 1994, no significant differences in workload were found based on age or gender. The average age of the practicing pediatric neurologist in 2001 was 51 years compared to 45 years in 1994. The proportion of physicians over 55 years in 2001 was 35% compared to 25% in 1994. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric neurology in Canada is an aging specialty needing a significant recruitment of new members
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".