Survey of rural family physician-obstetricians in Southwestern Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objectives of this paper are 1) to analyze the characteristics of rural physicians who currently practise obstetrics, their training background and the environment in which they work and 2) to develop strategies to sustain rural obstetrical services. METHODS: Information was gathered using both a survey and brief individual interviews. PARTICIPANTS: A survey was sent to 56 family physicians who currently practise obstetrics,as well as those who had stopped within the past 2 years, in the Southwestern Ontario communities of Clinton, Goderich, Hanover, Kincardine, Markdale, Mount Forest, Palmerston, Walkerton, Wiarton and Wingham. RESULTS: Forty-four physicians responded to the survey. Results indicate that current obstetrical training programs are lacking in the following areas: the provision of positive role models/mentors, rural placements, experience in complex decision-making, and instilling confidence in graduates. Physicians appear to be internally motivated to practise obstetrics, claiming it is important to their professional goals and personal values. Support systems of colleagues, nursing staff, administration, family and friends, were identified as vital components of a successful obstetrical program. CONCLUSION: Educators are advised to identify students with an internal motivation to practise rural obstetrics early in their medical training and provide them with mentors, rural placements, confidence and experience in complex decision-making.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".