Effets de certaines mesures de la deuxième entente des médecins omnipraticiens sur leur activité dans le cadre du régime d’assurance-maladie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designed to contribute to an assessment of the effects of the second agreement with general practitioners, the study analyzes the effects produced on the medical practices of general practitioners by pay range of a) the individual income ceiling and b) various types of fee restrictions on supplementary medical procedures provided under the agreement. The methodology used consisted basically in analyzing the variations of selected indicators of professional activity and medical practice among general practitioners by pay range following the implementation of the second agreement. Control groups were used to facilitate the assessment of other factors that may have influenced the variations referred to. The study shows that the income ceiling has resulted in a significant slowdown in the professional activity of general practitioners whose income had been in excess of the income ceiling in the year preceding the agreement. The shorter work period was accompanied by a longer vacation period. From the second part of the study it appears that the implementation of the second agreement has also appreciably reduced differences in medical procedures by pay range. The fee restrictions on supplementary procedures have produced a very considerable drop in the number of supplementary procedures performed by general practitioners in the top pay ranges, whereas in the past such procedures had been particularly prevalent in those pay ranges.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".