MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187839158

RESPECT from specialists

2008· article· en· W2187839158 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Donna Manca, Stanley Varnhagen, Pamela Brett-MacLean, G. Michael Allan, Olga Szafran

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Family Physician · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisDelphi methodFocus groupSample (material)Set (abstract data type)Computer scienceMedical educationData scienceMedicineQualitative researchArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE To explore potential solutions to the challenge of gaining more respect for FPs from other specialists. DESIGN An original Web-based qualitative survey, from May 27, 2004, to January 5, 2005, involving 5 rounds. SETTING Province of Alberta. PARTICIPANTS A sample of 28 Alberta FPs of differing experience, locations, and types of practices. METHODS Purposeful maximum variation sampling was used to identify a heterogeneous sample of FPs. The Delphi technique was used with an anonymous, iterative, Web-based survey to develop consensus among participating FPs. The first 2 rounds of the survey were designed to generate rich, thick descriptions of the rewards and challenges FPs experienced; the last 3 rounds were designed to refine this information and identify potential solutions and support that key organizations could provide. This information was collapsed into themes using thematic content analysis and reviewed by a working group; with input from the working group we decided to focus our analysis on the challenge of gaining respect from specialists. MAIN FINDINGS Each round yielded an 86% to 96% response rate, from which 11 key challenges were identified including “respect from specialists.” Suggestions of potential solutions to gaining more respect included the need to create and develop relationships between FPs and other specialists and to support each other’s roles; to raise the profile of family medicine in universities and teaching hospitals; to change negative attitudes by promoting the expertise and role of family medicine to others; to demonstrate and maintain a comprehensive skill set; and to address intraprofessional inequities and provide appropriate incentives. Participants suggested roles that organizations could play; for example, universities and medical schools could avoid making negative comments about family practice, reward FPs involved in teaching, and decentralize medical education to provide more experience in community settings and environments that model interactions between specialists and FPs. Organizations could recognize and promote the role that FPs play in the health care system, seek their input into decisions involving primary care, and move toward equitable and fair remuneration. CONCLUSION Perceived lack of respect toward FPs from some of their specialist colleagues might be reflective of issues that go beyond family physician–specialist interaction. Solutions will likely require the involvement of academic centres and other organizations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Family PhysicianSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207