An analysis of the development of a successful medical collaboration to create and sustain family physician anaesthesiology capacity in rural Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Initial efforts to increase the availability of training positions, standardise training, and obtain national recognition for family physicians who wished to practise anaesthesia had stalled. OBJECTIVE: To describe the work undertaken to create and sustain family medicine anaesthesiology capacity in Canada. METHODS: In our review, we examined the critical aspects of successful intersectoral work, namely, involvement by key stakeholders; the development of decision-making mechanisms; clearly defined objectives, roles and responsibilities; official support and legitimisation from participating organisations and adequate resources for partnership building. SETTING: Canadian rural family medicine anaesthesiology practice. RESULTS: A small steering committee obtained funding for a national meeting of stakeholders and subsequent committee work over an 18-month period. The national meeting brought together the necessary stakeholders to review and discuss the issues and agree on a group-determined agenda, determine a work plan, identify priority areas and allow the College of Family Physicians of Canada to be the lead organisation in moving the work ahead. Within 18 months, the boards of the key organisations had accepted a common set of standards for training and a national curriculum. Work remains in the longer term to identify sustainable funding for training of family physician as well as the provision of continuing medical education for those trained. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate attention to the key components of successful intersectoral work may enable previously stalled and complex work to move ahead despite opposition.
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 | 0.020 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".