Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey conducted in 5 countries reveals that physicians around the globe are worried about the quality of care they can provide. More than half of physician respondents in Canada, New Zealand and the US, 48% in the United Kingdom and 38% in Australia said their ability to provide quality care has declined in the past 5 years, and most were not optimistic about what the future holds. Almost two-thirds of Canadian physicians (62%) and over half of those in New Zealand (52%) and the US (53%) were worried that the quality of care will continue to decline. Three-quarters of Canadian physicians believe that in the future patients will be waiting longer than they should for medical treatment. Less than half of the US physicians (41%) shared this concern. Most physicians polled in the 5 countries rated nursing staff levels as poor or fair. UK physicians were most likely (84%) to give low ratings to nursing staff levels. Physicians from every country except the US were also concerned about the supply of specialists. Canadian physicians (63%) expressed more concern over inadequate medical and diagnostic equipment than their international colleagues. American doctors (8%) were the least worried. Almost half of respondents from Canada and the UK rated their emergency room facilities fair or poor, compared with 27% of US physicians. Despite their concerns, physicians in all 5 countries were more satisfied with their health care systems than the people who use them. Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders generally were 4 to 5 times more likely (1998 poll) than physicians (2000 poll) to call for a complete reconstruction of the system. Between 46% and 58% of physicians in those countries agreed that there are some positive aspects about their health care systems, but said fundamental change is needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.014 |
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".