Ten most notable family medicine research studies in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To identify 10 noteworthy Canadian family medicine research studies that have affected practice in order to demonstrate the unique value that Canadian family medicine research offers. Composition of the committee Representatives from the Section of Researchers (SOR) and the Health Policy and Government Relations department of the College of Family Physicians of Canada developed a framework for inclusion and identified an initial list of articles. Members of the SOR Council and research directors from the 17 Canadian departments of family medicine reviewed the preliminary list and suggested additional studies. Methods The authors developed an initial list of studies carried out by Canadian family medicine researchers from those researchers who had received awards from the College of Family Physicians of Canada since 2002. Additional studies were proposed by members of the SOR Council and the university research directors. A total of 36 published articles were reviewed by the SOR authors, and an annotated short list of 16 articles was prepared. From that list, the other authors identified 7 noteworthy studies that were used to form the basis of advocacy materials. The SOR authors, along with 3 additional members of the SOR Executive, used an informal consensus process to select the final 3 articles to arrive at the top 10. Report The top 10 most noteworthy family medicine research studies are presented in this article and represent the unique contribution that Canadian family medicine research brings to health care in Canada. They have helped advance health care quality and improve care delivery, beneficially influencing health care practices, health care policy, and patient experiences. Conclusion This project has identified 10 classic Canadian family medicine research studies that continue to influence practice today. In addition to their usefulness as tools for teaching, advocating, and championing the contribution of research to modern family practice, these studies are important examples of the value of research to patient health in Canada and around the world.
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 | 0.037 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.064 | 0.103 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".