ENT in general practice: training, experience and referral rates
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
A postal survey of 500 general practitioners (GPs) in south-west England was undertaken to evaluate the levels of undergraduate and postgraduate otolaryngology training and/or experience received by GPs in that area. Most GPs had received two weeks of undergraduate training in ENT, which had involved no formal assessment. Three-quarters of GPs considered this inadequate. A quarter of GPs had completed a hospital post in ENT prior to entering general practice, most of which lasted three months. Sixty-one per cent of GPs had received some formal postgraduate training in ENT, in the form of courses, lectures or hospital training sessions. Almost half of the GPs considered this inadequate. Seventy-five per cent of GPs stated they would like further training in ENT. Subjective estimates of referral rates to hospital ENT specialist clinics varied considerably. This study illustrates the variability and level of dissatisfaction regarding ENT training amongst GPs at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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