Do residents in a northern program have better quality lives than their counterparts in a city?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether McMaster University's family medicine residents training in the Family Medicine North (FMN) program have better quality lives than those based in Hamilton, Ont (urban). DESIGN: Residents at both sites were simultaneously given the Quality of Life Questionnaire, a standardized measurement tool. They were asked to complete the questionnaire anonymously and to provide demographic data. SETTING: Family practice residencies in Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: McMaster University's family medicine residents. Of 66 residents living in Hamilton, 36 completed the questionnaire; five respondents were ineligible. Of 25 residents living in Thunder Bay, Ont, 24 completed the questionnaire; none were ineligible. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total quality-of-life score. Score was divided into five major domains, each with several subdomains: general well-being (material, physical, and personal growth), interpersonal relations (marital, parent-child, extended family, and extramarital), organizational activity (altruistic and political behaviour), occupational activity (job characteristics, occupational relations, and job satisfiers), and leisure and recreational activity (creative/esthetic behaviour, sports activity, vacation behaviour). RESULTS: The FMN residents scored significantly higher than the Hamilton-based residents on overall quality of life (124.7 vs 112.5, P < .05) and tended to score higher in the five major domains. The trend reached statistical significance in general well-being and occupational activity; it was also apparent in various subdomains, with statistically significant differences in material well-being, marital relations, job characteristics, job satisfiers, and vacation behaviour. CONCLUSION: Family Medicine North residents enjoy better quality of life than their urban counterparts based on responses to a standardized questionnaire.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".