Physicians certified in family medicine. What are they doing 8 to 10 years later?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine field of medicine and location of a cohort of physicians certified in family medicine between 1989 and 1991 and residing in Ontario in 1993 and to gather information on the scope of practice of family physicians in the cohort in 1999. DESIGN: Responses to a mailed questionnaire sent in 1999 were compared with responses to a 1993 survey of this group. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All family physicians in Ontario in 1993 who received certification in 1989, 1990, or 1991 after completing a family medicine residency. Seven of 557 respondents to the 1993 survey were ineligible; 293 physicians (53%) responded to the 1999 survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Field, location, and scope of practice. RESULTS: About 91% of the cohort were still practising family medicine, although 11% of these had restricted their practices to certain areas within family medicine. Physicians migrated from Ontario (6%) in nearly equal numbers to other provinces and other countries, predominantly the United States. More family physicians offered counseling, shared antenatal care, and newborn care in 1999 than in 1993. Those with restricted family practices provided fewer types of services and were less likely to provide antenatal or intrapartum care or to provide in-hospital services. CONCLUSION: Receiving certification in family medicine does not guarantee that physicians will remain in family practice 8 to 10 years later. Loss from general family medicine to restricted practices within family medicine and specialization was greater than loss from migration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".