Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long wait times for health care have become a significant issue in Canada. As part of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology's Human Resource initiative, a questionnaire was developed to survey patients regarding wait times for initial gastroenterology consultation and its impact. A total of 916 patients in six cities from across Canada completed the questionnaire at the time of initial consultation. Self-reported wait times varied widely, with 26.8% of respondents reporting waiting less than two weeks, 52.4% less than one month, 77.1% less than three months, 12.5% reported waiting longer than six months and 3.6% longer than one year. One-third of patients believed their wait time was too long, with 9% rating their wait time as 'far too long'; 96.4% believed that maximal wait time should be less than three months, 78.9% believed it should be less than one month and 40.3% believed it should be less than two weeks. Of those working or attending school, 22.6% reported missing at least one day of work or school because of their symptoms in the month before their appointment, and 9.0% reported missing five or more days in the preceding month. A total of 20.2% of respondents reported being very worried about having a serious disease (ie, scored 6 or higher on 7-point Likert scale), and 17.6% and 14.8%, respectively, reported that their symptoms caused major impairment of social functioning and with the activities of daily living. These data suggest that a significant proportion of Canadians with digestive problems are not satisfied with their wait time for gastroenterology consultation. Furthermore, while awaiting consultation, many patients experience an impaired quality of life because of their gastrointestinal symptoms.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.271 | 0.099 |
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".