Dermatologic Training and Practice in Canada: An In-Depth Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of an in-depth review of the specialty for the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC), the Dermatology Working Group (DWG) was tasked with leading a comprehensive and objective analysis of the current state of Dermatology practice and training patterns in Canada. Preliminary research for the report was conducted in 3 areas: a jurisdictional analysis, a literature review, and a landscape overview. The results of this research were published in the spring 2019 edition of the Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery. Various factors impacting the discipline were explored, including trends in the workforce, population needs, accessibility, and wait times, as well as issues in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. The DWG, supported by the RCPSC’s Office of Specialty Education, used information gained from the reviews, a national survey, and stakeholder perspectives to develop recommendations that address the current challenges and build upon opportunities for advancement in the specialty.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it