Recent Canadian neurosurgery graduate employment outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The American Board of Neurological Surgeons (ABNS) made persons beginning neurosurgical training in Canada after 1997 ineligible for ABNS board exams and certification in the United States (US). We set out to track employment outcomes for graduates who are “ABNS ineligible.” Methods: Graduates from Canadian neurosurgical programs who began training from 1998 to 2008 (ABNS ineligible) were followed regarding their employment status (n=143). Data was obtained from public-domain websites and direct connections though Canadian Neurosurgical Society (CNSS) members. Association between pursuit of research during residency (MSc, PhD, or ≥ 2 years of non-degree research) and full employment was determined by Fisher’s exact test. Results: 60% and 26% of graduates currently have full-time staff positions in Canada and the US, respectively. “Underemployment,” defined as failure to secure a full-time position in neurosurgery despite a desire to do so (including locums, additional fellowship positions, unemployment and career changes) is currently seen in 12% of graduates, with 20% having been underemployed at some point within 5 years of graduation. Pursuit of research during residency was significantly associated with obtaining full employment (94% vs. 73%, p=0.011). Conclusions: Underemployment is a significant issue in recent neurosurgical graduates from Canadian training programs. Research training during residency appears strongly associated with obtaining full employment.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".