Rural net migration of Canada's rehabilitative and technical health care workers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recruitment and retention of health care providers continue to be problematic for rural Canada. Both imply movement from source to destination areas. But analyses of mobility patterns, especially to and from rural areas, do not exist for most of Canada's health care occupational groups. As an exploratory study, this paper presents national summaries of internal migration trends of personnel in selected rehabilitative and technical occupations. Census data are employed to determine migration counts and rates with a focus on rural net migration of these health care providers. In general, their mobility patterns are similar to that of the general population: rural net losses in the 1980s during the "turnaround of the turnaround," rural net gains in the early 1990s during the "rural rebound" and then rural losses again in the late 1990s, the "turnaround of the rural rebound." However, there are a number of differences for some of these health care occupations, and these are examined in the paper using data from three 5-year census migration periods: 1986-1991, 1991-1996 and 1996-2001.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".