MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121958337

Relationship between practice location of Ontario family physicians and their rural background or amount of rural medical education experience.

2005· article· en· W2121958337 on OpenAlexaffabout
James Rourke, Filomena Incitti, Leslie Rourke, MaryAnn Kennard

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineRural areaRural communityOddsRural healthMedical schoolOdds ratioPhysician supplyPopulationResidency trainingDemographyContinuing educationMedical educationEnvironmental healthLogistic regressionInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The present study was designed to determine if there was a difference in rural background and rural medical education experience between practising rural physicians and practising urban physicians in Ontario. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey was mailed to 507 strictly defined rural family physicians and 505 urban family physicians practising in Ontario. The main outcome measures were population of the community while growing up, rural medical education and medical school attended. RESULTS: Responses of 264 rural physicians were compared with 179 urban physician responses. The groups were comparable in years of practice. Rural physicians were significantly more likely to have grown up in a rural community (34.9% v. 14.6%), to have had clinical training in a rural setting during medical school (55.4% v. 35.2%) and to have had clinical training in a rural setting of 8 weeks or more during postgraduate residency training (38.8% v. 20.2%). During residency training, longer duration of rural placements (more than 6 months) was significantly associated with practice in a rural area (15.5% of rural physicians, 1.7% of urban physicians). After controlling for other predictors, each of the following were independent variables: growing up in a community of less than 10 000 people (odds ratio [OR] 3.31), having had some undergraduate rural clinical training (OR 2.46), having had postgraduate rural training of 8 weeks or more (OR 2.17), attending a Canadian medical school outside Ontario (OR 3.80) and being male (OR 2.57). CONCLUSION: Practising rural physicians compared with urban physicians were significantly more likely to have come from a rural background, to have had an undergraduate rural medical education, to have had postgraduate rural training, to have graduated from a Canadian medical school outside Ontario, and to be male. Each of these had an independent effect on practice location.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations103
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207