Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proportion of adult Canadians who have a “regular doctor” to provide routine care dropped from 90% in 1999 to 71% in 2001, a recent HealthInsiders survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers indicates. [This issue is significant because the absence of a regular doctor results in the “orphan patient” phenomenon, in which patients arriving in hospital have no one to assume responsibility for their care. This has already led to the relatively recent creation of a new specialty, hospitalists. It also creates concerns about continuity of care, because many of these patients rely on walk-in clinics and emergency departments for their routine care. — Ed.] Although 81; of Canadians with a chronic illness reported having a regular doctor, only 62% of those with no chronic illness reported having one in 2001. Income also seems to play a role, because only 64% of people with incomes under $20 000 reported having a regular doctor, compared with 76% of those with incomes of $50 000 and higher. Quebec residents were least likely to report having a regular doctor (60%), while Ontario residents were most likely (79%). Males were less likely than females to have a regular doctor (63% versus 79%), and males who do have a doctor were also slightly less likely than females to have seen their doctor within the previous 12 months (85% versus 91%). Among adult respondents who had seen their physician in the past year, three-quarters reported discussing some type of disease prevention with the doctor. In many cases the discussion was initiated by the patient — 50; of respondents reported that they had asked their doctor about a prevention topic or topics. Exercise was the most frequently discussed prevention topic discussed with a physician (46%), followed by stress (38%) and diet or nutrition (34%). Fifty-six percent of respondents (irrespective of whether or not they had a regular doctor) reported having a routine physical examination in the 12 months before the survey; females (66%) were much more likely than males (47%) to have had the exam. More than two-thirds of respondents (69%) had their blood pressure checked in the year before the survey, and 34% had a cholesterol test. The survey involved telephone interviews with 2594 adult Canadians from across the country.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.003 |
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".