Rural intentions: factors affecting the career choices of family medicine graduates.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the reasons for family medicine graduates' career choices. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups and one-on-one interviews. SETTING: University of Calgary in Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen male and female second-year family medicine residents, representing a range of ages and areas of origin, enrolled in the 2004 urban and rural south streams of the family medicine residency program at the University of Calgary. METHOD: During the final month of training, 2 focus groups were conducted to determine graduating students' career choices and the reasons for them. After focus-group data were analyzed, a questionnaire was constructed and subsequently administered to participants during face-to-face or telephone interviews. MAIN FINDINGS: Most residents initially planned to do urban locums in order to gain experience. In the long term, they planned to open practices in urban areas for lifestyle and family reasons. Many residents from the rural stream had no long-term plans to establish rural practices. Most residents said they felt prepared for practice, but many indicated that an optional third year of paid training, with an emphasis on emergency medicine, obstetrics, and pediatrics, would be desirable. Reasons cited for not practising in rural areas were related to workload, lifestyle issues, family obligations, and perceived lack of medical support in the community. Only 4 female graduates and 1 male graduate intended to practise obstetrics. The main reason residents gave for this was inadequate training in obstetrics during residency. Finances were cited as a secondary reason for many choices, and might in fact be more important than at first apparent. CONCLUSION: Despite its intention to recruit family medicine graduates to rural areas and to obstetrics, the University of Calgary residency training program was not successful in recruiting physicians to these areas. The program likely needs to re-examine the effectiveness of current approaches. If other programs are having similar difficulties recruiting graduates to obstetrics and rural practice, perhaps changes in policies should be considered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".