MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2412784747

Pulse : “Freedom 55” closer to age 65 for physicians

2000· article· en· W2412784747 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Shelley Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetirement ageAge groupsMedicineGerontologyDemographyFamily medicineFinancePension
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This year, for the first time, the CMA's Physician Resource Questionnaire (PRQ) asked physicians to state the age at which they plan to retire from active medical practice. While the average age of planned retirement is 63 years, there are distinct differences among demographic groups. Female physicians tend to plan to retire earlier than their male colleagues (at age 60 versus age 64). The average age of planned retirement for GP/FPs (62 years) is slightly lower than for medical and surgical specialists (64 years). Interestingly, the average age of planned retirement increases consistently by age group. On average, those under age 35 plan to retire at 58 years of age, while the average age of planned retirement is 63 years for those in the 45–54 age group and 66 years in the 55–64 age group. On average, active physicians aged 65 and older plan to retire at 72 years. The PRQ also asked physicians to identify factors that might prevent them from retiring at their planned age. Insufficient personal savings was the most frequently cited barrier, with 66.2% of respondents indicating that this could interfere with their retirement plans. Younger physicians appear to be particularly concerned about having insufficient savings to retire at their planned age, with 73.3% of physicians under age 35 and 71.7% of those aged 35–44 citing this as a potential barrier, compared with 58.1% of those aged 55–64 and 43.6% of those aged 65 and older. Overall, 16.5% of physicians indicated that failure to find a suitable replacement could impede their retirement plans. This appears to be a greater concern among rural physicians; 22.5% of them cited it as a barrier to retirement, compared with 15.9% of urban physicians. At 21.4%, GP/FPs were more likely to view inability to find a replacement as a possible barrier to retirement, compared with only 11.1% of medical specialists and 10.9% of surgical specialists. The 2000 PRQ was mailed to a random sample of 8000 Canadian physicians, and the response ate was 36.3%. Results are considered accurate to within ±1.9%, 19 times out of 20. —

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2720.113

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→