The clinical interventional radiologist: results of a national survey by the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of clinical responsibility interventional radiologists in Canada currently have within their practice and would like to have within their future practices. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was e-mailed to all members of the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association. The survey was open for a period of 2 months. RESULTS: A total of 75 surveys were received, of a possible 247, a response rate of 30.4%. Responses regarding general measures of clinical duties were collected. The current situation in Canada is mixed, in that while most (82%) respondents perform procedures that require an overnight admission, only 11% have a dedicated interventional radiology (IR) ward and 29% have admitting privileges. Most (73%) respondents stated that interventional radiologists in Canada should become more clinical. The most common reason cited for a lack of admitting privileges was a lack of time (44%), followed by a lack of hospital or administrative support (40%), "other" (20%), and inadequate remuneration (14%). CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents believe that interventional radiologists should become more clinically oriented. The most frequently noted obstacles to becoming more clinically oriented are reluctant administration, lack of time, and inadequate remuneration for clinical duties.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 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".