Intrapartum care by general practitioners and family physicians. Provincial trends from 1984-1985 to 1994-1995.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine provincial trends in provision of intrapartum care by general practitioners and family physicians (GP/FPs) for the 11 years from 1984 to 1995. DESIGN: Analyses of provincial Medical Care Fee-for-Service Utilization data for births from 1984-1985 to 1994-1995. SETTING: 10 provinces of Canada. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of vaginal births billed by GP/FPs (expressed as total number of vaginal births billed by GP/FPs divided by total number of vaginal births). RESULTS: In 1994-1995, the proportion of vaginal births billed by GP/FPs ranged from 77.2% in British Columbia and 70.8% in Nova Scotia to 28.9% in Ontario and 23.6% in Prince Edward Island. These proportions have remained relatively high and stable during the period studied in some provinces, such as British Columbia and Nova Scotia, and have declined steadily and notably in others. CONCLUSIONS: Data show that GP/FPs' involvement in vaginal births in most Canadian provinces is decreasing. This trend demonstrates a shift in GP/FPs' practice patterns and could indicate a coming shortage of obstetrical care providers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".