The difference between medical students interested in rural family medicine versus urban family or specialty medicine.
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 determine how first-year medical students interested in rural family medicine in Canada differ from their peers. METHOD: From 2002 to 2004, first-year students (n = 2189) from 16 classes in 8 Canadian medical schools ranked intended career choices and indicated influences on their choices using Likert scales. We used t tests and chi2 tests to determine demographic influences and factor analysis, and we used analysis of variance to examine associated attitudes. RESULTS: Of the 1978 surveys returned (90.3%), 1905 were used in the analysis. Rural family medicine was ranked first by 11.1%, varying from 4.7% to 20.2% among schools. Students interested in rural family medicine were more likely to have grown up rurally, graduated from a rural high school and have family in a rural location than others (p < 0.001). They were more likely to be older, in a relationship, to have volunteered in a developing nation and less likely to have university-educated parents than those interested in a specialty (p < 0.008). Attitudes of students choosing family medicine, rural or urban, include social orientation, preference for a varied scope of practice and less of a hospital orientation or interest in prestige, compared with students interested in specialties (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Medical schools may address the rural physician shortages by considering student demographic factors and attitudes at admission.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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