MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990550247 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2019.25982

The Career Outcomes of Health Services and Policy Research Doctoral Graduates

2019· article· en· W2990550247 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Meghan McMahon, Bettina Habib, Robyn Tamblyn

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDoctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsCareer PathwaysMedical educationMentorshipTracking (education)PaceHealth carePrivate sectorCareer developmentVariety (cybernetics)Public sectorPolitical scienceMedicinePublic relationsPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the career outcomes of 20 years of PhD graduates from Canadian health services and policy research (HSPR) doctoral training programs. METHODS: The deans of the doctoral training programs were invited to participate in this national cohort study. A standardized career-tracking template was developed. Internet searches of publicly accessible sources were used to track graduates' employment. Descriptive analyses summarized PhD program characteristics and current employment. RESULTS: Of the 1,208 trainees who graduated during our study period, 884 (73.2% of 1,208, or 90.3% of the 979 with complete data) could be successfully tracked. HSPR PhD graduates are highly employable, but employment trends have changed over time. Today's graduates are more likely to enter careers in a wider variety of sectors and roles and are less likely to be employed in academia than previous graduates. However, over 50% of graduates are currently employed in professorial positions within the academic sector or in research roles or departments within healthcare delivery organizations. CONCLUSIONS: This article provides an initial descriptive profile of the career outcomes of HSPR PhD graduates in Canada from 10 university-based doctoral training programs. To ensure that PhD graduates are prepared to contribute fully within diverse sectors and roles, doctoral training must evolve to keep pace with employment trends and encompass, in addition to research skills, the professional skills demanded in the public, private, not-for-profit and healthcare delivery sectors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.468
GPT teacher head0.633
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicDoctoral Education Challenges and SolutionsFrench-language works237,207