Additional skills training for rural physicians. Alberta's rural physician action plan.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM ADDRESSED: Rural physicians in Alberta identified access to special skills training and upgrading skills as an important practice requirement. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: The Rural Physician Action Plan in Alberta developed an Enrichment Program to assist physicians practising in rural Alberta communities to upgrade their existing skills or gain new skills. The Enrichment Program aimed to provide a single point of entry to skills training that was individualized and based on the needs of rural physicians. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Two experienced rural physicians were engaged as "skills brokers" to help rural physicians requesting additional skills training or upgrading to find the training they required. Physicians interested in applying for the Enrichment Program consulted one of the brokers. Each applicant was assigned a preceptor. Preceptors confirmed learning objectives with trainees, provided the required training in keeping with agreed-upon learning objectives, and ensured trainees were evaluated at the end of the training. CONCLUSION: The program has helped rural physicians upgrade their skills and gain new skills. More Alberta rural physicians are now able to pursue additional training and return to practise new skills in their rural and remote communities than in the past.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.004 |
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".