Rural women family physicians. Are they unique?
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
OBJECTIVE: To compare the scope of practice and degree of personal and professional satisfaction of rural women family physicians with their rural male, urban female, and urban male counterparts. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey. SETTING: Rural and urban Ontario family practices. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 442 rural and urban family physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Personal and professional characteristics, scope of practice, and degree of personal and professional satisfaction. RESULTS: Rural women family physicians' scope of practice is as broad as that of rural men, and the women are more likely to attend births. They work many more hours on average than their urban counterparts. Rural women incorporate more professional activities into their practices than both male and female urban family physicians do, but they are less satisfied, both personally and professionally. CONCLUSION: Rural family practice provides a broad scope of practice for both women and men, but initiatives are needed to make rural practice more professionally and personally satisfying for both women and men.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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