Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To identify and quantify the reasons general practitioners and family physicians consider retraining and their reasons for not pursuing further training. DESIGN Population-based mailed survey. SETTING British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS Family physicians and general practitioners identified by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Practising physicians’ level of awareness of the University of British Columbia’s re-entry training program, the number and demographic characteristics of those who had considered retraining, their specialties of interest, and the barriers and possible inducements to retraining. RESULTS Only half of the survey respondents were aware of the re-entry training program at the University of British Columbia. A small but substantial number of practising general practitioners and family physicians were interested in taking specialty training from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. While several training programs were particularly popular (ie, anesthesia and psychiatry—18.5% of respondents for each), almost every specialty training program was mentioned. Physicians identified the length and hours of training, financial issues, family issues, and the need for relocation as obstacles to retraining. The availability of part-time training, regional training, and return-of-service financial assistance were all identified as potential inducements. CONCLUSION To meet the needs of practising physicians, re-entry training programs will need to consider flexibility, where feasible, with regard to choice of specialty, intensity, and location of postgraduate training.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.004 |
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".