Development of a tool to investigate caregiving issues from the perspective of family physicians and discussion of preliminary results
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
AIM: The aim of our study was to develop a survey for family physicians to better understand family physicians' beliefs, level of knowledge and sense of accountability regarding their support of informal (i.e., unpaid) caregivers of older adults. BACKGROUND: Seniors with dementia can be supported to 'age in place'. However, this requires assistance from family and friends, who are often seniors themselves and may have health issues of their own. Although family physicians are well positioned to assist older adult caregivers, there is a paucity of data regarding this role. METHODS: After a literature review, we created a questionnaire to examine these issues. It was reviewed by experts and, after revision, was appraised by health planners/decision makers and pre-tested with family physicians. A final questionnaire was created using this feedback. FINDINGS: The next important step would be to administer the questionnaire to Canadian family physicians using appropriate survey methodology.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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