MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recruitment and Retention of Healthcare Professionals for the Changing Demographics, Culture, and Access in Canada

2011· book-chapter· en· W2489070643 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stefane Kabene, Melody Wolfe, Raymond Leduc

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in healthcare information systems and administration book series · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingHealth careDemographicsBusinessHealth professionalsNursingService (business)MedicinePublic relationsPolitical scienceMarketingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian healthcare system strives to serve a population altered by ever-changing demographics, cultural shifts, and diverse societal populations, and to serve those in rural communities with remote access to health care. The following chapter examines Canada’s current healthcare system and the effects on demand for services and the supply of healthcare providers created by the need to service rural populations, by limited access to medical schools, and by the introduction of foreign medical/health professionals. More specifically, the chapter reviews the symptoms of a strained medical system plagued by “brain waste” due to the non-use of qualified immigrant healthcare professionals, long wait times as a result of inadequate staffing and resources, and a school system that hinders the development of aspiring medical care professionals from rural and international areas. If Canada is to face these challenges with efficacy and vigour, effective human resources management techniques and competent human resources professionals are a necessary prologue. Medical knowledge and skill must be valued; healthcare professionals should be utilized more efficiently to improve healthcare access and minimize brain waste.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.324 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in healthcare information systems and administration book seriesSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207