Resilience, respite and general practice: taking a mindful approach to culture change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Demand for primary care services is high, with more patients and fewer practitioners leading to concerns that primary care physicians are struggling to cope with patient demand (1). General practice workload is seen as a potential risk to patients, simply because GPs are overworked (2). It may be time to be concerned about the long-term future of the family doctor—and to think personally, as well as professionally. These pressures clearly have an effect on those who currently practice in primary care. It is not just patients that are at risk; high levels of stress caused by unmanageable workloads are affecting practitioners too (3). The phenomenon of ‘burnout’ has been widely studied in medicine, linking chronic job-related stress and exhaustion, depersonalization and frustration (4,5). High levels of burnout have been found amongst family doctors across Europe, with up to two-thirds of doctors surveyed experiencing feelings contributing to burnout including being emotionally drained and unable to deal with problems calmly (6). Similar patterns have been observed in the USA (7) and Canada (8) and repeated across further studies.....
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".