MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028698450 · doi:10.3138/cpp.36.3.359

Physician Resource Planning in Canada: The Need for a Stronger Behavioural Foundation

2010· article· en· W2028698450 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sung‐Hee Jeon, Jeremiah Hurley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock (firearms)Work (physics)Foundation (evidence)Plan (archaeology)BusinessAffect (linguistics)Resource (disambiguation)Public relationsLabour economicsPsychologyEconomicsPolitical scienceLawComputer scienceGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An effective solution to the problem of access to physician services in Canada must extend beyond an over-exclusive focus on the number of providers to consider the behaviour of physicians in greater depth. The amount of labour and associated services supplied by physicians depends importantly on their attitudes regarding work, on practice and non-practice income opportunities, and on the policy environment in which they practise. Hence, the amount of labour supplied by a given stock of physicians can change over time. Only by considering the full range of factors that affect the labour supply of physicians can we effectively plan for physician resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207