Facilitators and barriers for the recruitment and retention of family physician anesthesiologists in Canada: a scoping review protocol
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
Introduction: Family Physician Anesthesiologists (FPAs) are essential to providing surgical, critical, and obstetrical care in rural communities of Canada. They experience pressing challenges like burnout, isolation, and limited opportunities for professional growth, which has led to a decline in numbers in recent years. There is a lack of studies synthesizing the available evidence on the factors associated with recruitment and retention of FPAs in Canada. We aim to systematically review and describe the nature of the scientific evidence on the facilitators and barriers to the recruitment and retention of FPAs in Canada, and to identify areas to inform potential solutions. Methods and analysis: Our scoping review will search Pubmed, Embase (Ovid), and Scopus for empirical or theoretical publications in English or French on facilitators and barriers to the recruitment and retention of FPAs in Canada. We will conduct a narrative synthesis of the included publications. Ethics and dissemination: Our results will guide future research and initiatives to enhance the availability of FPAs in Canadian rural and remote settings. Ethics approval is not required. The results will be shared through professional networks, presentations at conferences, and publication in a scientific journal.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it