Physician Shortage in Canada: A Review of Contributing Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The physician shortage in Canada is multifactorial. It is important to identify potential factors and policies contributing to the problem. An extensive literature review to retrieve primary source articles was performed using the PubMed database. Other sources of information included reports identified using the websites of organizations, associations, government bodies and Google scholar, as well as additional primary source articles identified using reference lists of retrieved articles and reports. Healthcare policy changes in the 1990’s limited the growth of physician supply through the reduction of medical school enrolment, restrictions on recruitment of international medical graduates into the workforce, redistribution of family physician and specialist mix and loss of physicians to the US. Inadequate supply of primary care physicians is reflected in the low interest among medical students in a family medicine career and the shortage of physicians in rural areas. Reduction of physician productivity is characterized by an aging physician population, greater proportion of women in the workforce and the reduction of direct patient care hours among the new generation of physicians. The problem is further exacerbated by inefficiencies in healthcare expenditures, judging from high healthcare spending and low physician-to-population ratio. An understanding of factors contributing to the physician shortage is essential in order to develop successful strategies to alleviate inadequate physician supply.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".