Bibliographic record
Abstract
The CMA's 2000 Physician Resource Questionnaire found that rural general practitioners and family physicians are much more likely than their urban colleagues to do emergency room work and perform other duties outside of their office-based practice responsibilities. The survey of GP/FP practice patterns found rural GP/FPs were more than twice as likely as their urban counterparts to perform some emergency room work (38% versus 15%). The survey also found that age is a factor in ER work: 31% of all GP/FPs aged 34 and under worked in an ER, compared with less than 20% of GP/FPs in all other age groups. The amount of time spent in the ER decreases with age, dropping from 15.6 hours per week in the under-35 age group to 9.9 hours per week in the 55–64 age group. About 20% of GP/FPs younger than 65 and 15% of those aged 65 and older spend some time doing surgery or surgical assisting during an average week. Total hours spent on this activity are relatively low, ranging from 2.7 hours per week (GP/FPs 35 and under) to 4.2 hours per week (GP/FPs aged 55–64). Rural GP/FPs are more likely to do obstetrical work than urban doctors (28% vs. 15%), although urban GP/FPs are involved in more deliveries (46 per year) than rural GP/FPs (25 per year). Female GP/FPs are as likely to handle deliveries as their male counterparts, but women who provide the service deal with significantly more deliveries per capita than their male colleagues (52 per year v. 34).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".