Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: Although the idea of expanding primary care physicians’ (PCPs’) skills to include some specialty skills1 sounds good and may work well in some areas of rural Canada, it would be difficult and even dangerous for PCPs here in the United States. In fact, the results could be disastrous. First, in primary care in the United States the burden of administrative demands is extraordinarily onerous, and it alone has already brought on burnout in many PCPs. These doctors’ energies and emotional reserves are already stretched to the maximum, and any further strain would be ill conceived and lead to disaster. Second, the U.S. litigation system is extremely aggressive and adversarial. Using PCPs to provide services beyond their usual skill set greatly increases their vulnerability to malpractice suits. If specialists are seeing problems that they feel should be seen by a PCP then they should charge fees similar to what a PCP would charge. That is a better way of controlling costs. Edward Joseph Volpintesta, MD President, Bethel Medical Group, Bethel, Connecticut; [email protected]
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 | 0.002 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.302 | 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".