MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1916801397

Challenges for rural communities in recruiting and retaining physicians: a fictional tale helps examine the issues.

2013· article· en· W1916801397 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fiona McDonald, Christy Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFactory (object-oriented programming)Rural areaSociologyHistoryPublic relationsMedicineGerontologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

n the 2003 Qubcois movie Seducing Dr Lewis, 1 the island of Sainte-Marie-la-Mauderne in Quebec is in decline, with many of its residents unemployed.A company offers the island's citizens hope for a more prosperous future when it considers building a factory on the island; however, there is one catch: the community must have a permanent family physician.The community's recruitment attempts for a physician have failed for 15 years.Then, through nefarious means, a young doctor, Christopher Lewis, is exiled to the island for a month.Now the community's only hope is to seduce Dr Lewis to stay.This movie offers a number of issues for discussion about the recruitment and retention of family physicians to rural and remote areas.In this commentary, we use the movie to present some of the challenges for rural communities during these processes.The literature on this topic often highlights the perspectives of physicians but not those of communities.It is important to consider the perspectives of communities, as research establishes that they are key to determining why physicians choose some places to practise over others. [2][3]3][4][5][6] Additionally, as some physicians participate in community recruitment processes, it might be helpful to understand the viewpoints of communities in more depth.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.215 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207