Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The scope of practice by general practitioners and family physicians in North America has been changing over time. Are academic practices providing residents the same scope of practice as the urban practices into which they are going? METHODS: A survey describing the activities and scope of general practice/family practice was constructed from the literature and checked with general practitioners/family physicians for face validity. It was administered by mail to academic family physicians at the University of Alberta Department of Family Medicine in Edmonton and to all practicing general practitioners/family physicians in the city and Capital Region around Edmonton. There was a response rate of 78% and 50.9%, respectively. RESULTS: Academic physicians' practices differed from those of their urban colleagues. The former were all certified by the College of Family Physicians of Canada, worked in group practices, and included more males and fewer immigrants. They worked as many hours, but did less clinical work than their urban colleagues. Even so, 25% did more than 40 hours of clinical work each week compared with 68% of urban physicians. There was a wide scope of services and procedures provided by both groups and other services that were different from group to group. There was no difference between groups in intention to add or remove services in the next two years, but academic physicians had removed more services in the last two years. CONCLUSION: General practitioners/family physicians still provide a wide range of services. Although both academic and urban general practitioners/family physicians have reduced some services in the last two years, they have both added others to their repertoire. Although the teaching and urban general practitioners/family physicians practices have many similarities, they also have differences, which may have implications for the training of future urban family physicians.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".