The Educational Needs and Professional Roles of Canadian Physicians and Nurses regarding Genetic Testing and Adult Onset Hereditary Disease
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 investigate the knowledge, professional involvement and confidence of Canadian nurses and physicians in providing genetic services for adult onset hereditary disease. METHODS: 1,425 physicians and 1,425 nurses received a mailed questionnaire with reminders. The response rates were 50% (n = 543) and 79% (n = 975), respectively. RESULTS: Forty-eight percent of physicians and 31% of nurses lacked formal education in genetics. Respondents reported being involved in caring for people at risk for adult onset hereditary disease. Their levels of confidence that they could perform tasks, such as counselling about predictive genetic tests, however, were lower than their levels of expectation that it would be important for them to provide these services. CONCLUSIONS: The expected roles and educational needs of Canadian nurses and physicians have broad areas of overlap suggesting the possibility of combined professional education programs and multiple ways of organizing teams to provide genetic services to people at risk for adult onset hereditary disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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