MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484611045

How is rural defined and used in Canada

2014· article· pt· W1484611045 on OpenAlexaffabout
James Rourke, Janelle Hippe

Bibliographic record

VenueANAIS DO CONGRESSO SUL-BRASILEIRO DE MEDICINA DE FAMÍLIA E COMUNIDADE · 2014
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRural managementRural historyRural areaOperationalizationRural sociologyRural communityInclusion (mineral)PopulationMedical educationGeographyMedicineRural developmentSocioeconomicsSociologyEnvironmental healthSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introducao: Introduction: Despite a number of Canadian studies linking rural background and rural placements to rural practice, there remains variation within this literature with regard to what constitutes “rural.” A consistent definition of “rural” may be a useful tool for medical schools, governments, and other interested stakeholders as policies and programs to increase rural practice are created. Objetivos: Objective: This study reviews selected Canadian research articles that include an operational definition of rural. Our aim is suggest a definition of rural that could be applied nationally and consistently. Metodologia ou Descricao da Experiencia: Methodology: From July to August 2013 PubMed was used to identify Canadian-based research articles that: 1) utilized a clearly operationalized definition of ‘rural’ to describe or categorize medical student background, educational placements, or physician practice location 2) tested for a statistical relationship between rural background or rural educational placements and rural practice locations. Search terms included (but were not limited to): rural background, rural origin, rural placement, rural education, rural doctors, rural physicians. Abstracts were reviewed; articles that fit criteria 1) and 2) above were subjected to full review and definitions of rural were categorized. Resultados: Results: In all, 14 articles were identified for inclusion in this review. Among these articles, definitions of “rural” used included: community of under 10,000 population; community of under 25,000; community of under 100,000; provincially specific combinations of size and distance from a larger center; and self-perception (e.g. self-perception of community of practice location as ‘rural’). A table was produced to show the frequency with which each definition was used and the statistical relationships identified by the studies under review. Conclusao ou Hipoteses: Conclusions: This review points to the usefulness of standard and graduated definitions of rural. We argue for the adoption of operational approach that defines communities of under 25,000 as rural, with a major subgroup of those communities of under 10,000, but recognizes gradations of rural from under population under 1000 to population under 100000.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueANAIS DO CONGRESSO SUL-BRASILEIRO DE MEDICINA DE FAMÍLIA E COMUNIDADESame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207