Community Physicians’ Attitudes Toward Electronic Follow-up After an Emergency Department Visit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over 1-month, a survey was faxed to family primary care practitioners (PCPs) in the Greater Toronto area who referred patients to the Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto) emergency department (ED). Information about demographics, Internet access, and whether PCPs were interested in receiving e-mailed information about their patients. Of the 323 PCPs, 24% were excluded because they could not receive a fax or they had an office outside the hospital's area code. One hundred fifty (61%) completed the survey-48% were family-physicians and 52% were pediatricians. Ninety-seven percent had Internet access and 9% had no personal e-mail. In total, 61% were interested in receiving electronic communication about their patients visiting the ED. Pediatricians were much more interested in the information compared to family physicians (p<0.0005). Having an e-mail account at home and at work, Internet access in the office, and reading e-mail once a day (or more) were the strongest indicators of being interested in receiving information. The main reason for disinterest however, was not enough time to read the e-mails (46% of non-interested PCPs).
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".