Who steers the ship? Rural family physicians’ views on collaborative care models for patients with dementia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the views of rural family physicians (FPs) regarding collaborative care models for patients with dementia. The study aims were to explore FPs' views regarding this issue, their role in providing dementia care, and the implications of providing dementia care in a rural setting. This study employed an exploratory qualitative design with a sample of 15 FPs. All rural FPs indicated acceptance of collaborative models. The main disadvantages of practicing rural were accessing urban-based health care and related services and a shortage of local health care resources. The primary benefit of practicing rural was FPs' social proximity to patients, families, and some health care workers. Rural FPs provided care for patients with dementia that took into account the emotional and practical needs of caregivers and families. FPs described positive and negative implications of rural dementia care, and all were receptive to models of care that included other health care professionals.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it