Recent Graduates Experience Difficulty in Finding Positions Despite Apparent Need for More Pediatric Cardiologists in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been reports that pediatric cardiology is an increasingly competitive field and that it has become difficult for recent graduates to find employment. In Canada, empirical observations are consistent with these findings, but this has not been formally evaluated. The aim of this study was to survey pediatric cardiologists (PCs) on their perception of the current workforce in Canada. A survey was sent to PCs and trainee members of the Canadian Pediatric Cardiology Association in November 2017. Eligible nonmembers of the Canadian Pediatric Cardiology Association were also contacted with the help of Canadian program directors and division chiefs. A total of 68 of 83 PCs completed the survey (82%). The proportion of respondents reporting difficulties in finding a stable position in pediatric cardiology was 83% for those finishing training after 2014 compared with 33% between 2010 and 2014. There was a concomitant increase in the duration of additional subspecialization, which more than doubled after 2014. This contrasted with most PCs (57%) and division chiefs (86%) reporting being understaffed, and with a higher number of anticipated openings compared with available trainees. Division chiefs reporting being understaffed mostly attributed this to government regulations or institutional budgetary constraints. We observed a discrepancy between a perceived need for additional PCs and a reported increasing difficulty in finding employment by recent graduates. This coincided with an increasing number of additional subspecialization years by recent graduates. Institutional and government restrictions may contribute to this situation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".