Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The proportion of adult Canadians who have a “regular doctor” to provide routine care dropped from 90% in 1999 to 71% in 2001, a recent HealthInsiders survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers indicates. [This issue is significant because the absence of a regular doctor results in the “orphan patient” phenomenon, in which patients arriving in hospital have no one to assume responsibility for their care. This has already led to the relatively recent creation of a new specialty, hospitalists. It also creates concerns about continuity of care, because many of these patients rely on walk-in clinics and emergency departments for their routine care. — Ed.] Although 81; of Canadians with a chronic illness reported having a regular doctor, only 62% of those with no chronic illness reported having one in 2001. Income also seems to play a role, because only 64% of people with incomes under $20 000 reported having a regular doctor, compared with 76% of those with incomes of $50 000 and higher. Quebec residents were least likely to report having a regular doctor (60%), while Ontario residents were most likely (79%). Males were less likely than females to have a regular doctor (63% versus 79%), and males who do have a doctor were also slightly less likely than females to have seen their doctor within the previous 12 months (85% versus 91%). Among adult respondents who had seen their physician in the past year, three-quarters reported discussing some type of disease prevention with the doctor. In many cases the discussion was initiated by the patient — 50; of respondents reported that they had asked their doctor about a prevention topic or topics. Exercise was the most frequently discussed prevention topic discussed with a physician (46%), followed by stress (38%) and diet or nutrition (34%). Fifty-six percent of respondents (irrespective of whether or not they had a regular doctor) reported having a routine physical examination in the 12 months before the survey; females (66%) were much more likely than males (47%) to have had the exam. More than two-thirds of respondents (69%) had their blood pressure checked in the year before the survey, and 34% had a cholesterol test. The survey involved telephone interviews with 2594 adult Canadians from across the country.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,060 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».