The changing face of academic paediatrics in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1999, the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) conducted a nation-wide study of paediatricians to determine their practice patterns, location of practice, workload, and the time that they spend directly related to patient care, teaching, research, administration and self-learning (1). The results of the study were alarming and pointed to a looming national paediatrician resource crisis for the following reasons. The paediatric work force is aging and that by the year 2010, 40% of today's paediatricians will have retired. There are simply not enough medical school entry positions or paediatric training positions to offset the number of retiring paediatricians. In addition, contemporary paediatricians work more hours per week than those in the past. However, younger paediatricians work fewer hours than the pediatricians who will retire during the coming decade. Finally, there is an increasing number of female paediatricians entering the work force. The study indicated that female paediatricians prefer to work in large, urban centres, with an approximately equal distribution between academic and community practice. Using data that were obtained from the CPS survey, the present article focuses on the impact of these findings on academic paediatrics 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 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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".