In for the long haul. Which family physicians plan to continue delivering babies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics of family physicians planning to discontinue or stay in intrapartum care. DESIGN: Self-administered questionnaire. SETTING: Department of Family Practice at Children's and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-five family physicians who attended at least one birth at the Health Centre between April 1997 and August 1998. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intention to leave or stay in family practice maternity care, physician characteristics and beliefs. RESULTS: Forty-five percent (43/95) of family physicians planned to leave maternity care within the next 5 years. Physicians planning to leave had more negative attitudes about the alternative birthing centre, doulas, and practising in free-standing settings without on-site obstetricians; were more likely to report missing personal events because they had put their maternity patients first; were less likely to make housecalls during women's labour; and were more likely to be paid through fee-for-service. CONCLUSION: Being paid by fee-for-service, having negative attitudes toward non-traditional maternity care, and conflict between maternity care and personal life were associated with intention to leave intrapartum care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".