A Survey of Recipient Client Physician Satisfaction with Teleoncology Services Originating from Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this work was to investigate end user satisfaction and perceived efficacy on the part of client physicians for teleoncology services in Northwestern Ontario. A survey of 98 referring physicians from 17 remote communities in Northwestern Ontario was undertaken primarily to determine overall client physician satisfaction with the teleoncology process. The survey also investigated perceived problems and explored potential solutions. Overall client physician satisfaction was high for the majority of response fields. However, more than 50% of surveyed physicians felt that some aspects of the teleoncology process could be improved with an emphasis on more timely communication of interview results, continuity of care, and improving patients comfort level with the technologies involved. The success of this service is evidenced by its exponential growth since the original introduction in 2001. Ninety-eight percent of referring physicians would continue to use the teleoncology service process.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it