A comparison of consults seen at an urban and a rural consulting general paediatric clinic in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wide variety of consults are seen in urban and rural consulting general paediatric clinics in Canada. To compare the types of consults seen in an urban and a rural consulting general paediatric clinic in Canada, and to assess whether commonly seen consults in these paediatric clinics involved disciplines for which general paediatricians believed themselves to be inadequately trained. All new consults at the Ottawa Children’s Clinic (OCC, Ottawa, Ontario) and the Healthy Kids Clinic (HKC, Miramichi, New Brunswick) were reviewed during a 12-month period (July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010). The consults were grouped by discipline according to the Objectives of Training in Paediatrics, published by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. A total of 512 and 586 new consults were seen in the 12-month period at the OCC and the HKC, respectively. The most common consults seen at the OCC were in the disciplines of gastroenterology (19%), nutrition (11%), renal/genitourinary (11%), and development and behaviour (11%). At the HKC, the most common consults seen were in the disciplines of development and behaviour (21%), gastroenterology (16%), cardiovascular (11%) and neuromuscular (8%). A wide range of consults were seen at the consulting general paediatric clinics. The relative frequency of these consults at individual clinics may represent regional paediatric subspecialty shortages or the specific interests of the consulting paediatricians. Many disciplines in which consultant general paediatricians see a large number of consults (especially development and behaviour consults) are areas in which paediatricians believe themselves to be inadequately trained.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".