Pod people. Response of family physicians and family practice nurses to Kosovar refugees in Greenwood, NS.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore roles of family physicians and family practice nurses who provided care to Kosovar refugees at Greenwood, NS. DESIGN: Qualitative study based on individual interviews with family physicians and family practice nurses. SETTING: Family practices in Halifax, NS. PARTICIPANTS: Six family practice nurses, four physician faculty members, four community-based family physicians, and two family medicine residents were interviewed. Participants were purposefully chosen from the roster of service providers. METHOD: All interviews were conducted by one of the researchers and were semistructured. Interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes and were immediately transcribed. Key words and phrases were identified and compared with subsequent interviews until saturation was achieved. MAIN FINDINGS: Data yielded four analytical categories: the clinical encounter, expectation and experience, role and team functioning, and response. Participants reported how providing care in the context of a refugee camp was both similar to and different from their daily activities in family practice, as were their working relationships with other health care professionals. CONCLUSION: Primary care for refugees during complex health emergencies is often underreported in the literature. Yet family practice physicians and nurses recounted that they had the requisite skills to provide care in such a context.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".