Factors influencing rheumatology residents’ decision on future practice location
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are regional disparities in the distribution of Canadian rheumatologists. The objective of this study was to identify factors impacting rheumatology residents' postgraduate practice decisions to inform Canadian Rheumatology Association workforce recommendations. METHODS: test. RESULTS: A total of 34 of 67 residents completed the survey. Seventy-three percent of residents planned to practice in the same province as their rheumatology training. The majority of residents (80%) ranked proximity to friends and family as the most important factor in planning. Half of participants had exposure to alternative modes of care delivery (e.g. telehealth) during their rheumatology training with fifteen completing a community rheumatology elective (44%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of rheumatology residents report plans to practice in the same province as they trained, and close to home. Gaps in training include limited exposure to community electives in smaller centers, and training in telehealth and travelling clinics for underserviced populations. Our findings highlight the need for strategies to increase exposure of rheumatology trainees to underserved areas to help address the maldistribution of rheumatologists.
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 | 0.054 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".