Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To explore family physicians’ perceptions of and experiences with patient diversity, including differences in sex, race, ethnicity, social class, sexual orientation, and abilities or disabilities. DESIGN Semistructured, in-depth, qualitative interviews. SETTING Halifax metropolitan region, Nova Scotia. PARTICIPANTS Twenty-two family physicians who ranged in age (25 to 65 years) and in years of practice ( 20). Participants included both sexes, members of racialized minority groups, and those who self-identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. METHODS Physicians were recruited through information letters distributed by mail and through professional networks. Interviews and field notes were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using data analysis software. Weekly team discussions enhanced interpretation and analysis. MAIN FINDINGS Family physicians employed 5 main approaches to diversity: maintaining that differences do not matter, accommodating sociocultural differences, seeking to better understand differences, seeking to avoid discrimination, and challenging inequities. Quotes from interviews illustrate these themes. CONCLUSION Most approaches assume that both medicine (as a profession) and physicians are and should be socially and culturally neutral; some acknowledge that the sociocultural background of patients can raise tensions. Most participants in our study seek to treat patients as individuals in order to not stereotype, which hinders recognition of the ways in which sociocultural factors—both patients’ and physicians’—influence health and health care. Critical reflexivity demands that physicians understand social relations of power and where they fit within those relations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".