MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An analysis of the development of a successful medical collaboration to create and sustain family physician anaesthesiology capacity in rural Canada

2005· article· en· W2044770313 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jocelyn Lockyer, Peter Norton

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Rural Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineNursingMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Rural HealthSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207