MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2398458591

Consultations with doctors and nurses.

2005· article· en· W2398458591 on OpenAlex
Gisèle Carrière

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily medicineMedicineNurse practitionersHouse callNursingHealth care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most have family doctor or GP In 2003, an estimated 86% of Canadians aged 12 and older—about 23 million people—reported that they had a “regular” medical doctor. Even if they did not, just over threequarters of people these ages (77%) said they had consulted a family physician or a general practitioner (GP) at least once in the past year. As well, 11% reported having consulted a nurse. Predictably, older Canadians were more likely than younger people to have seen or talked to a family physician or GP. By contrast, having had at least one consultation with a nurse was more likely in early adulthood. At nearly all ages, the proportion of females who consulted family physicians/GPs or nurses at least once was greater than that for males. Nurse visits among seniors were the exception. While women aged 65 or older CONSULTATIONS WITH DOCTORS AND NURSES by Gisele Carriere

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it