Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of responsibility for reviewing a colleague’s orders for nursing home patients was raised in the February 2005 issue of Canadian Family Physician in the context of agreeing to “assist” a colleague during an illness lasting several months.1 When I stand back and look at this from a distance, I see a different picture. The questioner admits to having difficulty finding time to cover for his or her colleague because of an already excessive workload. In this context, I think that covering for a colleague during illness has a number of undesirable side effects that are often overlooked. First, increasing the workload of an already overburdened physician makes medicolegal mishap more likely. The physician is effectively being blackmailed to review the colleague’s orders, “or the patients will not be able to get their medications.” I suggest that this is a system failure that has been compounded by physicians’ acquiescence in covering for their colleagues. A colleague’s patients do not become your responsibility, nor do you have a duty of care, until you agree to cover for this colleague. As a profession, we are already stretched very thin. When we almost unthinkingly agree to cover for a colleague during illness, we stretch ourselves even thinner. If there is a medicolegal consequence, we will be the ones who suffer, not the nursing home administrator, not the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care or its bureaucrats. As long as we agree to be stretched thinner, this will continue to be the case. Thus, we prevent the problem from becoming visible and expose ourselves to medicolegal risk. Perhaps it is time for us to look at the consequences of our collegial behaviour in covering for colleagues. When we agree to do this, we contribute to the underfunding and demise of our health care system and, at the same time, expose ourselves to increased medicolegal risk.
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 | 0.011 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".