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
PROBLEM BEING ADDRESSED: Patients in a family practice had to wait 6 weeks for an appointment. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: To improve patient care by facilitating access to timely appointments. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: An FP from Halifax, NS, implemented advanced access in her practice. Advanced access is a same-day booking system, which has been shown to reduce or eliminate patient backlogs without the addition of resources. Theoretically, it can be put into effect in any practice with a stable backlog (which indicates that supply and demand are well matched). The first step to implement the advanced access system was to clear the existing appointment backlog. During a 6-week "boot camp" period, all prebooked patients and patients who called requesting same-day appointments were seen (between 50 and 60 patients per day). Same-day appointment rules apply to almost all patients. Staff begin accepting calls at 8:00 AM, and patients request the most convenient time available. CONCLUSION: Baseline and postimplementation data are not available, as this was not a formal research study. Nevertheless, this FP from Halifax who implemented advanced access experienced the following in her practice: elimination of patient backlog, fewer no-shows, patients' happiness with the system, increase in physician and staff morale, and stability in physician income. Formal feasibility studies and research evaluating patient outcomes, cost effectiveness, and physician and patient satisfaction in a variety of practice settings would help Canadian FPs decide if same-day booking could be successfully implemented in their practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 it