MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094084411 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2007.18680

Determinants of Waiting Time for a Routine Family Physician Consultation in Southwestern Ontario

2007· article· en· W2094084411 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Amardeep Thind, Cathy Thorpe, Andrea Burt, Moira Stewart, Graham J. Reid, Stewart B. Harris, Judith Belle Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaiting listFamily medicineHealth carePopulationMedicineDemographyEnvironmental healthSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Waiting times are a reality in Canada' s publicly financed single-payer healthcare system.While there are ample data about waiting times for specialized investigations and procedures, few data exist about waiting times to see family physicians, and determinants of this wait.We analyzed data from a survey of 731 family physicians in southwestern Ontario to understand physician-and practice-level determinants of waiting time.Physician gender, usual number of patients seen per week, involvement in teaching and population served were the key determinants of physician-reported waiting time. RésuméLes temps d' attente sont une réalité du système de soins de santé canadien -un système à payeur unique financé par l'État.Bien qu'il existe amplement de données sur les temps d' attente pour les enquêtes et procédures spécialisées, il en existe peu sur les temps d' attente pour consulter les médecins de famille et sur les facteurs déterminants de ces temps d' attente.Nous avons analysé des données provenant d'une enquête menée auprès de 731 médecins de famille du sud-ouest de l'Ontario afin de comprendre les facteurs déterminants liés aux médecins et à leur pratique et qui influent sur les temps d' attente.Notre recherche démontre que le sexe du médecin, le nombre habituel

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207