Promising quantities, disappointing distribution. Investigating the presence of French-speaking physicians in Ontario's rural Francophone communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have suggested that there may be a lack of French language healthcare services in the province of Ontario. The purpose of this study was to determine if physicians in Ontario who expressed a proficiency in providing services in the French language are located in 'Francophone communities'. METHOD: Responses from 10,968 Ontario-based family physicians (FPs) certified by the College of Family Physicians of Canada and uncertified general practitioners (GPs) who responded to the 2007 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Annual Membership Renewal Survey were analysed and compared to the 2006 census of the population of Ontario. Main outcome measures were the number of FP/GPs categorized by their language of competency to conduct medical practice and the number of people categorized by their first official language spoken. The physician-to-population ratio was then compared for different groups of communities in Ontario categorized by the degree of francophonie of the community: strong French communities, with a Francophone population ≥25%; moderate French communities, with a Francophone population of 10-24%; and weak/no French communities, with a Francophone population <10%. RESULTS: There are 5.6 French speaking FP/GPs for every 1000 Francophones in communities with a French population less than 10%. This ratio is considerably greater than what was found in moderate French communities (3.4 FP/GPs) and strong French (1.3 FP/GPs). Overall the lowest ratios were found in rural strong French communities both in southern and northern Ontario (0.8 FP/GPs and 0.9 FP/GPs respectively). The ratio for all of Ontario was 0.7-1.3. CONCLUSIONS: As the number of Francophones increases in a community, the availability of French-speaking FP/GPs actually decreases, particularly in rural northern Ontario. Furthermore, there is a paradoxical relationship between the potentially high number of FP/GPs in the province with French-language capabilities and the perceived deficiencies in the availability of French language medical services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; 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".